Mark Hemingway and Ramesh at NRO today linked “from 52 to 48 with love,” a cam-shot project reminiscent of that one site that came up after GWB’s 2004 victory. It’s treacly, and the gesture I am sure is well-meant, considering the propensity of youthful participants. Mark, bless his heart, has been receiving grief.

Judging by the torrent of email, my post below seems to have struck a nerve. By linking to such a shiny happy display, I wasn’t suggesting anyone immediately make peace with an Obama administration. Especially since most liberal attempts at reconciliation during the Bush years amounted to “Oh, hey — would you mind picking up the soap?” As one reader put it, “I’m more inclined to dress my wounds, restring my bow, and plan my counterattack than I am to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.”

Fair enough. But I do think that after eight years of “He’s not my President” bumper stickers and trying to put Karl Rove under citizens’ arrest for his role in unconstitutional mattress tag removal, it’s probably necessary that we be the adults here. And that includes acknowledging when overtures are made to make things less rancorous.

Many of us are graceful to the other side in defeat, because we have seen what it has cost them to be so acrimonious for years. I can not live my life like that. I am a patient, incremental political thinker and advocate, but I am not immortal. So in defeat, be gracious. In conflict, be ruthless. In victory, retain one’s soul.

I want to give these kids the benefit of the doubt. They have been led to believe that this has been a disgusting, hateful campaign and that they have spent the past eight years of their lives in a climate of hate. But the seventh photo down has a classy challenge to the 52, and features a photo of the greatest American president ever:

When free speech rights of conservative voices on the radio are stomped on by Obama & Pelosi, will the “52″ object?

When secret ballots of prospective union members are done away with by Obama & Pelose, will the “52″ say anything?

If a conservative president is elected in 2012, will today’s “52″ be as gracious as the “48″ today?

Cute photographs and catchy sloganse are nice but what really counts is whether you’ll walk your talk. There’s a word for those who won’t: Hypocrisy!

Yes, we are all rooting for the same team, and that is the success of America. I want the 52 to know that our opposition isn’t mean to lead the country to its failure. It’s because we believe that when the President is about to lead us down to a dangerous path we will not sit idly by and be quiet.

But beyond the small reprimand, I, too have a message for the 52.

When you were less than 52, and you called upon the assassination of the President, did we demand a government reprisal for your political speech? When McCain/Palin supporters marched the streets of NYC to express themselves, were you there to shout them down? Were you there offering the middle finger? When you, as one of the 52 who supported Obama, wore a shirt calling Governor Palin a “c**t,” were you aware of the irony in your behavior?

Do you offer your hands in reconciliation merely because you are victorious? Had we been the 48, but still won the electoral college, and your Dear Leader offered words of conciliation, would you have followed his lead? When we offer No Cover in the House for Pelosi’s overreaches, so much so that we can present her largesse for you to judge, will you give us the benefit of the doubt?

We share certain common goals:

• You may want a more educated public. I do, too, but not if it means that our students and their parents will not have the choice through school vouchers, among other things. Not if it means that our children will be indoctrinated by Leftist teachers. Not if it means that when one of our children go to school carrying our family values and beliefs, they will be publicly humiliated by their teachers. Not if it means that we will need a teacher’s license to home-school our children, as if working from home weren’t sacrifice enough.
• You may want “universal” health care. I do, too, but not if it means that the government will have a massive say in how we treat our bodies. Not if it means that we may lose our jobs for eating unhealthy food, or smoking, or drinking. Not if it means that our choice of doctors will be limited. Not if it means that our doctors themselves will have to have the means they recommend pre-approved by some pencil-pusher who thinks they know what is better for a patient.
• You may want a “greener environment.” I do, too, but not if it means regulating to death aspects of our personal lives. Not if it means that our choices of energy solutions are hobbled by an “if it isn’t perfect, it isn’t good enough” approach.
• Finally, you may want peace on earth and mercy mild. I do, too, but not if it means that we will bring our soldiers home in shame and defeat. Not if it means that we will not finish the job in Afghanistan. Not if it means that we will leave the relatively free nations of Eastern Europe defenseless against a resugent Russia. Not if it means that we will leave G-d’s children in Israel to fend for themselves against Iran.

To the 52: we are not that different. We share common goals. But if you ever care to listen about how you and the 48 differ, it’s in the means. It’s in the methods. Our respective sides will always believe our methods are better. This is life.

(Cross-posted on Red State.)

Bill Quick ponders what for me would be the biggest problem about the coming BHO administration:

Every single tyrant of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (that I know of) has created “national security forces”. Almost every wanna-be tyrant tries it. SS. NKVD. IRGC. Republican Guard. Stasi. These are just a few of the more notorious names “national security forces” have gone under. I don’t know the names of all of them, but similar organizations were created in China, Cuba, Vietnam, the Eastern Bloc countries during the Iron Curtain years, Venezuela under Chavez, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and more. Allende claimed that he could not control the left-wing paramilitaries in Chile, even though their leaders were part of his ill-fated coalition.

There is only one purpose for creating large new security forces.. That purpose is to create forces loyal to the executive that can offset the typically conservative forces of existing military and law enforcement organizations. These new forces have no institutional history, so they have no inbuilt resistance to the leader who creates them. They are typically staffed with the most fervent and loyal followers of the leader, people who can be counted on to go out and intimidate, extort, and bust heads without asking questions. They are intentionally designed as instruments of intimidation and political control.

I was thinking about this on my drive home. I was thinking hard. BHO’s background of Alinskyite community organizing square well with the goals of this new domestic paramilitary. Come to think of it, it is the apotheosis of Alinsky’s methods. The creation of a separate domestic paramilitary immediately makes a runaround of the concept of posse comitatus in the sense that the BHO CNSF is neither military, nor police, at least technically.

So what, pray tell, would this mythic beast be? Bill Quick continues in his essay to question the need for the CNSF’s very existence. I do, too. We have institutions in place for domestic security. They are called police, and in cases of national emergency, the National Guard, and what have you.

But, for a second, let us give BHO the benefit of the doubt that his intentions are sincere and pure. Thus he sets in place yet another institution that may never ever go away (cf: Dept. Of Education). If for no other tyrannical reason, the CNSF will be key to his wealth redistribution methods. Who will be his troops on the ground? Who will be its adminstrators, its organizers? I could imagine the bureaucracy of this CNSF to be similar to what ACORN might use. It will follow the community organization model because it is what he knows best. This institution will be staffed by the ranks of the currently unemployed, as a means of “raising them from poverty.” They will be grateful, and they will be loyal.

Finally, let us set aside the very idea that this is a tyrannical concept in the first place, if but for a second. Consider the final problem with this idea. It is a goverment institution and with it comes the lack of accountability and the propensity of underperformance that is inherent in any “safe” “government job.” I mean not to denigrate the careers of those in public service, but from the outside, it is what we see. Corporations great and small tend to be far more ruthless with underperformers. And we won’t have that kind of accountability in a service like that. There goes my tax money, producing 10 cents’ worth of work for every dollar paid.

Paranoid much, you might ask? I have remained calm in my dread. I have maintained my arguments with no foam around my mouth. If Barry Oh! dare, and I mean dare try to get this program in the works, I will speak. But for now may we all be warned. (And this, dear friends, is what I mean loyal opposition, preemptive it may be. None of that “let’s hug and make up,” not before he’s done anything yet.)