At some point, one must fully admit who or what they are facing if they are to move forward successfully. Several events over the past few weeks have put this clearly on display.
By and large, the modern Democratic Party, led by President Obama, is the party of Government and Government Control at the expense of individual freedom. Normally when something like this is written, there is a lot of hyperventilation that also attends and hyperbole that obscures the actual facts. But the more I see the actual facts--and actual statements in their own words--the more I subscribe to a little more of that hyperventilation.
ITEM ONE: The Democratic Governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue, speaking to a Cary, N.C. Rotary Club had this to say about how to fix the economy:
"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election." [emphasis added] [
1]
Three hours later, the governor's office said the governor was using hyperbole--aka, just telling a joke! (HA! I know I'M laughing about the idea of suspending the democratic process! Aren't you?) However, according to the article, "It's unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious -- but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea." [
1]
I listened to
the audio, [
2] and I have to tell you, I didn't hear anything that sounded like a joke. She sounds completely sincere to me.
But to the main point: what is the solution and what is the problem in Ms Perdue's world-view? Government, if it was just left to itself, without the pressures and intrusions of the democratic process, would fix the economy. The "problem" is that it has to face the electorate with its actions. What a pity.
ITEM TWO: Former Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, in an OpEd for
The New Republic, commenting on how to "fix" our current gridlock, suggests:
"...During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.
"So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions.
In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic." [emphasis added] [
3]
I'm sure Mr. Orzag goes on to explain how a "depoliticized commission" could be created in a purely
political climate or who would have the "privilege" of determining the "automatic policies." I readily admit I read no further in the article, as I was not interested in signing up for a membership to do so. I also haven't heard anything from Orzag's office as to whether this is a "joke" or not.
Needless to say, Mr. Orzag's "solution" and his "problem" are remarkably similar to those of Ms Perdue: Namely, government has the answers when it is allowed a free hand, unfettered by the "limitations" of democracy. After all, reliance on such "automatic policies and depoliticized commissions" was a stellar success under the Soviet and East German regimes, right?
ITEM THREE: In July, speaking at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (FYI: "La Raza" means "The Race" in Spanish. Very multicultural, no?), President Obama let his wishes be known:
"
I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me...and...and...and, and believe me, uh,
right now dealing with Congress the idea...But, but, but, believe me, uh, believe me the idea of,
of doing things on my own is very tempting. It, it, I,
I promise you, not, not, not just,
not just on immigration reform." [
4]
Now to be fair to the president, he does follow that with, "But that's not how, that's not how our system works. That's, that's, that's not how our democracy functions." And according to the transcript he also adds, "That's not how our Constitution is written." [
4]
But listen to
the audio [
4], and you get a better sense of the reality of the statement. Listen to the applause that forces him to stop after his initial statement. Listen to the roar of the crowd at the suggestion. Listen to the extended chants of, "Yes you can! Yes you can!" Listen to the jovial way the president uses while claiming he relishes the prospect. And listen as he informs "The Race" it doesn't work that way. Is that disappointment in h is voice?
The president may laugh it off with a wink and a nod, but again, the underlying world view is crystal clear: Unlimited governmental power, unfettered by the trappings of democracy and its pesky, duly elected representatives, would be a superbly wonderful thing. Sadly, for those of like mind: "But that's not how our system works." [
4]
Or does it?
ITEM FOUR: Perhaps you remember the announcement the administration made on August 18th:
"
The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.
"That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change." [
5]
I don't know why I was so surprised when I heard this. It is simply a natural extension of the same underlying world-view expressed above. Forget the fact that these 300,000 "immigrants" are ILLEGAL. With a stroke of pen, a letter handed down from above, the flexing of the convenient and unfettered arm of Government, Government simply makes their illegal status irrelevant. Yes they ARE criminals, by virtue of the fact that they have broken the law. But here Government makes an end run around the pesky "will of the people," enacted by duly, democratically elected representatives. Here Government makes the clear, unfettered statement that Government knows best.
Beyond the simple frustration of such lies the much darker reality. In this action Government has made itself the sole arbiter of who wins and who looses, who stays and who goes, who is completely
illegitimate and who is quasi, semi, "temporarily-for-now"-legitimate, who must stay in the shadows and who, though removed from the shadow, must forever remain in a state of limbo. With no basis in law, the rule now becomes the fiat command of those "in charge"--the fiat decree of Government and It's Will. Some see this as a change for the better. Some see it as an improvement. Others would see it as the repetition of so many failed pages in history. They would see it as the initial steps in a long series that lead inevitably to tyranny and totalitarianism. And in that they are at least partially right; from the backs of such small steps much larger ones have been taken in other places and times.
What these small steps will mean in the long run of American history has yet to be seen. Is this a passing expansion that will, as has happened before in our past, contract with the next application of "unruly" democracy. Or will there be broader implications? Will average citizens face the arbitrary application of law based solely on the whim of Government? Who can say? But if we are to prevent such an outcome in the end we must understand who it is we that face: those who see more democracy as the problem and more Government as the solution.
**********
[1]
Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years; <
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdue_suggests_suspending_congressional_elections_for_two_years_was_she_serious>; 09/27/2011; accessed 09/28/2011
[2]
New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections; <
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/>; 09/28/2011; accessed 09/28/2011
[3]
Too Much of a Good Thing; <
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy>; 09/14/2011; accessed 09/28/2011
[4]
Obama: "The Idea Of Doing Things On My Own Is Very Tempting"; <
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/25/obama_the_idea_of_doing_things_on_my_own_is_very_tempting.html>; 07/25/2011; accessed 09/28/2011
[5]
Many Undocumented Immigrants Without Criminal Records Facing Deportation Will Stay In U.S.; <
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/breaking-undocumented-immigrants-can-stay-in-us_n_930668.html>; 08/18/2011; accessed 09/28/2011
