Hello, hello. Back again from the brink of apathy. No, it’s not really that I don’t care. Rather, it’s just that I have my doubts about the potential fruits of honest laboring to stem the tide of delusion that appears to have overtaken the globe.
To wit: The following is a response to a friend who writes to defend his Obama vote as “a non-endorsement of McCain/Palin”, yet also states, “my problem with Obama is that I think he does know what needs to be done, but doesn’t have the balls to do it.”
This friend, it should be noted, appears to suffer the same sort of cognitive dissonance that has swept the country, even the globe, in that he can, apparently, recognize the risk of economic collapse that will almost inevitably result from Obama’s policies – buying as much gold and silver as he can afford, yet still wish for a more complete fulfillment of Obama’s vision.
My response to him in regards to whether or not he has, in fact, rejected the modern progressive attempt to subvert our traditional form of government or is merely trading one oligarchy for another:
Well, yes, adding to your gold and silver holdings are a sort of repudiation of most things Washington. But, also, no, since any leftward leanings are inherently inclined to Big Gov solutions.
Small “d” democracy is always going to be more populist in orientation and that’s always going to lead to more programs, more bureaucracy, more pandering. I’m not saying that populism can’t add something to the process, but I’m strongly inclined to want it to stay well within the bounds of Constitutional Law.
Small “r” republicanism (and the conservatism that should be associated with it) is, by definition at least, intent with the preservation (or conservation) of the republic….meaning a small government constrained by the Constitution, or as Obama calls it “a charter of negative liberties“.
Fewer government liberties, by the way, will always result in greater individual liberties. That is, after all, the central principle of this form of government. Just ask Thomas Jefferson, or any founder you care to name So, anyone that can refer to the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties” is really missing (or, rather, is antagonistic to) the whole point – namely who it’s intended to protect (and from whom).
To be sure, both the big “D” and big “R” solutions have evolved into something approaching “universal pandering“. While I believe that the Big R’s should be more libertarian generally, I’d never expect the Big D’s to get very far down that road. Thus, the pandering that is evident in both parties only underscores the leftward slide towards progressivist big government across the whole of the political spectrum. For instance, I’d suggest that McCain’s policies would likely pass muster with a 50’s-era Democratic platform. He’s not, repeat NOT, much of a conservative in my opinion.
The Obama/Pelosi/Reid “monster”, on the other hand, are either something totally off the contemporary American scale or, alternatively, a giant backward step towards the sort of early 20th century progressivism that, inevitably, led to both Stalin and Hitler and both World Wars. And, no, I don’t really mean to be hyperbolic here. By that, I merely mean that these are people who appear to see no cognitive dissonance in both swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution and, at the same time, work day and night to ignore or subvert it (i.e. Pelosi’s “are you serious?” response to the question of their Constitutional authority to impose the health care bill.) And, yes, I’m offended by so-called conservatives doing the same thing, you bet.
But, even if you ignore this current crop of progressives, the long-standing desire of Democrats to fill the courts benches with “living & breathing”, “legislate from the bench” judges should tell us all we need to know about the intent of the American left. That is to say, if they can’t garner sufficient support to legally amend the Constitution, they’ll be more than happy to subvert it by any means possible (i.e. “stacking the court”, not to meantion the recent “deem and pass” congressional abuses.)
One final thought regarding “universal pandering”: This is a problem that is really only possible when the Constitution is either ignored or watered down so much that it allows government to grow into the sort of “candy store” that can be used by buy votes, be they from unions, greenies, or corporations.
Small government is intended to have little or no candy to pass out. So, the big government process will inevitably corrupt both parties, creating all those legislative loopholes and cutouts that you abhor. The problem with more government power and abuse of power is that it leads to yet more government power and abuse of power.
And, of course, the “oligarchy” you cite, will always be the biggest wallet in the store, whether it’s SEIU or Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. They only solution to that problem is to simply close the store. As it happens, It’s operating without a licence.
And, by the way, if you think that Obama “knows what needs to be done“, then – taking his own words at face value – you must believe that he wants still bigger government, still more redistributive “justice”, energy costs that “will necessarily skyrocket”, universal-single-payer health care, etc. How do these big government policy goals even remotely protect our individual liberties? As for “lacking the balls“, it would appear to me that he’s getting quite a few of those boxes checked off without too much difficulty.
Call me crazy, but I just want our government to obey the Constitution they’ve sworn to uphold. They’re welcome to use the legally prescribed process for changing it, but until then, obey it, please. And no, I’m not naive, just trying to be completely lucid and clear about what’s really going on.
For a bit of memory refreshment on Obama’s intentions, consider the following article from way back in 2008: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=495281