The statement is attributed to 19th-century financier “Diamond” Jim Fisk, shortly before he and his cronies decamped from New York for New Jersey, one step ahead of the process-servers. Yet it is an expression that could just as well serve as the motto of the Democratic Party, particularly the modern-day robber barons who constitute its leadership. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al propose to steal the personal and corporate financial capital of this, and future, generations, through obscenely high deficits and taxes, as well as to diminish our quality of life and to eliminate some of our most basic rights, through, among other schemes, the government takeover of health care. And they mean to accomplish this using means fair or foul (fair obviously isn’t going to work, so they’ve cheerfully embraced the foul, with their strategies of reconciliation and the legislative magic wand of the Slaughter rule, under which a bill is “deemed” to have passed without ever having been voted on). The various iterations of a health care bill are all singularly unpopular with the voters, the Democrats stand to suffer enormous losses in the elections this fall, and still the junta marches on, confident that, the autumn bloodbath notwithstanding, this gigantic entitlement will serve as the indestructible cornerstone of the statist future for which they yearn, with a passion that defies all logic, and that is perhaps only really explicable in terms of a congeries of psychological disorders, or in the older and wiser language which told of the snake in the garden.
Herein lies one of the most baffling and maddening ironies of democracy, to wit, that although it is a system, not only theoretically, but historically, conducive to the optimal development of personal freedom, it almost inevitably leads to the development of government dependency, up to and including variations on the theme of socialism. There are many factors that converge to effect this end; however, one of the most difficult to alter is the fact that the kind of people drawn to government and public policy are frequently leftists who view the state as an end in itself. To them, state and society are virtually indistinguishable, and, given their anti-historical consciousness, nothing more than an enormous set of tinker-toys, the structure subject only to the limits of the (government-approved) architects’ imaginations, which tend strongly toward the impossible perspectives of an M.C. Escher.
Others – the majority – who are either conservative or, if apolitical, at least practical and wise, know in their bones that government is not an end, but a necessary evil, which, if not reigned in by constant vigilance, becomes a willful and bloody-minded servant, only too eager to rule in the master’s stead. So we avert our eyes from the whole distasteful process of government, permitting the leftists to take the wheel by default, and we leave them carrying us all toward the ditch at breakneck speed.
But there is now a groundswell of fear and resentment and, perhaps most important of all, truly righteous anger over the usurpation of our liberty by the engineers of the provider state; and the Tea Party movement and the protests and the threats of electoral retribution – these things, too, are democracy, and a sign that the people have not yet become accustomed to the heavy hand of government. A good sign it is, and maybe even in time.
Update: Smitty has pictures of the patriotic uprising.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Herein lies one of the most baffling and maddening ironies of democracy, to wit, that although it is a system, not only theoretically, but historically, conducive to the optimal development of personal freedom, it almost inevitably leads to the development of government dependency, up to and including variations on the theme of socialism.
I can't find the exact quote, but I believe that it was Robert Heinlein who suggested that democracy fails when people realize that they can vote themselves bread and circuses at the expense of others. I suppose that's because they become selfish and short sighted.
That's surely the case here. The fact that Obama and his flying monkeys may well destroy the very system (and hence their source of bread and circuses) seems lost upon them.
Jeff: One hypothesis of mine is that the free society carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction because it generates so much wealth that the parasitic classes eventually manage to grab an ominously big portion of the loot and become more or less self-sustaining, and then actively seek more money and power at the expense of the productive classes. Doesn't necessarily have to turn out that way, though.
Elected Republican officials present a special problem. A Republican senator or congressman may begin by approaching government in the manner of a psychologist examining a case of mental illness; however, before long, he begins hearing mysterious voices and spooning mashed potatoes onto his head just like the patient.
Actually, Paco, I would extend that hypothesis to any society. Few totalitarian states last more than a generation or two. Witness the Soviet Union; it may not have set the record, but it certainly went the highest, and crashed nearly the hardest; it's still dying unto this day.
But the USSR was ruled by people who were insulated from the rest of the world, immersed in their theories about how things "ought to be", and eventually corrupted by human nature. The socialists and statists "won" control the Soviet Union, and ran it into the ground by their misguided policies.
It's ironic, then, that a free society, like America still is, appears to failing due to the same corruption by human nature....and run into the ground by their misguided policies.
A failure of government? Or a failure of people? Only future generations may be able to answer that question.
As far as elected Republican officials go......I'm convinced that almost anyone who runs for public office has at least the seed of corruption. There are exceptions, of course, but the wheeling and dealing rampant in Congress simply isn't conducive to honesty. The smart, honest ones tend to get out fairly quickly, I've noticed. A lot of the "career" politicians were too lazy and stupid to do anything else.
Ive got a slightly different theory...
Nearly every "western" or English speaking nation got the original blend of politics right. Legislation cant be passed AND bedded down within the lifespan of one administration except in truly rare instances.
ALL sides of politics complain that its too hard to work with the current system as its "too slow". Well dry your eyes sweetheart its supposed to be!
That means that you not only have to win an election, but CONTINUE to convince people/the public, that you know what you’re doing.
And because it takes so long unless you carry the majority with you your plan wont go ahead.
Thats a deliberate strength, frustrating yes (civil rights etc), but its either convince people your position is right or face possible domestic instability by riding roughshod over those you are ignoring..
There is no argument for streamlining the legislative process, the slowness of government is an essential part of the checks and balances. Why Obamanauts think its not necessary to sell their preferred health plan and achieve that consensus is beyond me.
Brilliant. Outta the ballpark, Paco and JeffS and FrollickingMole. Linking with little of my own comment at PPII.
Post a Comment