JUST WHERE ARE THE BARRICADES?
In the humble opinion of the Oso Politico (and all of his opinions are humble, indeed), there is no difference between the politics of the Left, and the politics of the Right. They are all Statists – the Left being Mommy Statists, and the Right being Daddy Statists.
Having said that, today I will pick on the authors of Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?, whom I assume from the tone of their article, are of the rightest persuasion. No malice is intended here, and actually, I sympathize somewhat with their position, but the reasoning has holes in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
It is essential that, in arguing against the State, that we understand the root causes for the failure of the State to deliver, either on the hopes and promises of the Mommies, or of the Daddies.
To quote the authors:
‘The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.’
• People can blah-blah all they want on the Internet. It ain’t going to change one god-damn thing that those who wield the Rings of Power are doing, and are going to do.
• Just peruse the internet for a few minutes at the so-called progressive sites, and then ask yourself: Just how obvious are ‘Washington’s failings’? To a lot of people, OBVIOUSLY not too fucking obvious!
• And then from that springs the fantasy that a second American Revolution is in the offing. Well, go grab your guns off the wall, but don’t forget what happened to Randy Weaver, or the poor sods at Waco.
‘People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”’
The collective word ‘people’ tells us nothing. Some people are asking. Who? And as for change, why…don’t we have the Republicans to change things when the Democrats are in power, and vice-versa?
If we are to believe the Constitution, the ‘power of government’ does not lie with the Presidency, nor with the Congress, but rather with the collective People. Aren’t those folks in Washington supposed to work for the People? If they aren’t doing a good job, why not just throw them out? Isn’t that the way our Democracy is supposed to work?
Let’s not forget that Congress is responsible for legislation and oversight of the Executive branch. If the legislation is rotten, and the oversight is non-existent, is the Executive to be blamed? ‘There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.’ In fact, there is no end to the harm that an in-control president can do, also. Others have written about the Imperial Presidency.
‘Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.’
Now here is a dumbass statement if ever there was one. Sorry to get so ad hominem. Blame it all on poor Billy and a blow job. Clinton is but one of a long line of presidents who have ‘lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation’. The problem is not the person, the problem is the system. It is the very system which allows one person to wield such power. As to GWB, the less said, the better.
Think of the power establishment as one enormous oil tanker. Have you ever tried to maneuver an oil tanker? Does it matter who the captain is? The Right-Wing attacks on Obama are merely infantile. It’s always the blame game. Pogo said it best: We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Another dumbass statement:
‘He (Obama) is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.’
Which ‘constitutional traditions’ are we talking about. Since the inception of the Republic politicians have been ignoring the pretty words, if not outright flouting them. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? The Alien Sedition Act? No, this didn’t all just start with some Democrat presidents like Clinton or Obama.
And I am not certain that concepts of private property are exclusively of an Anglo-Saxon nature. I would prefer to believe that such concepts are more of a human nature.
You have to love this one: ‘Fear and uncertainty stalk the land’. That one should win the authors a Pulitzer Prize. Nothing like a bit of hyperbole to get the troops to the barricades. Let the Revolution begin!!
‘Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington’s wise farewell admonition: “cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible … avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt … bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not … inconvenient and unpleasant … .”’
Why the opprobrium directed at young Obama? Many presidents have contributed to public debt, not the least of whom was GWB. As to taxes, why, where would the Republic be without taxes? Who would pay for Air Force One? As to that quote from the FF, that there are no taxes which are not ‘inconvenient’ and ‘unpleasant’, we might add the adjectives ‘coercive and immoral’.
Not to worry, dear and loyal readers, but one last quote:
‘Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.’
In other words, the Tweedle Dees might be replaced by the Tweedle Dums, but that won’t matter anyway, as the Mad-Hatter-In-Charge will continue his evil ways. So, as a rhetorical question: Why bother to vote at all?
And so, in attempt to complete the circle, what happened to our talk of revolution, which began the article in question? Is voting for the Republicans the revolution to which the authors are referring. Har-de-har-har-har.
(And a question: What is the purpose of all of these onanistic blatherings from Left and Right? It must feel good at the time, but does it really change anything?)
Well, all sarcasm and irony aside, what is to be done? And can something be done to scale back the size and power of the State to its proper role? (Let’s leave the role question for another day).
Basic premises need to be challenged, and new paradigms sought. After all, what is ‘democracy’ but mob rule by the majority? Each individual needs to decide whether he or she is self-owned, sovereign, or is merely property of the State, whether servant, serf, or slave. The question and the answer is not political, or one of correct economic theory – it is moral.