Comment of the day: power and the rule of law
Commenter Wolla Dalbo writes:
I think that a lot of commenters here are basing their analysis on a false assumption, and that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate. The far left ideologues in charge of the Congressional Democrats, and most rank and file Democrats in Congress too, from what I see, couldn’t care less about these things, and believe a la Bill Maher, that the American public is a collection of ill-educated, dumb, hicks, hillbillies, religious fanatics and bozos”“virtual sub-humans””bleating, stinking sheep who do not have the ability to comprehend where there best interests lie, and will, thus, have to be, in the immortal words of the French Revolution “forced to be Free,” as the Democrats define freedom.
Nothing must stand in the way of the Democrats “helping” us to be “Free,” and they are determined that nothing, certainly nothing so trivial as rules or law or procedures or Democracy, can be allowed to stop or delay their imperative errand of mercy, during which””not coincidentally”“they will gain tyrannical power, and loot the country to fill their pockets as well.
I would add that it is probably no accident that this has occurred as “progressives” have become more and more instrumental in our system of public education. The decline of teaching and knowledge about the Constitution, checks and balances, the rule of law, and American history among our young people that has gone on for decades have contributed mightily to the ability of our politicians to succeed—or at least come close—in this endeavor.
Here are some companion pieces to Wolla Dalbo’s observations. First, a retread of some quotes from Lenin:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
The goal of socialism is communism.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.
No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.
And now in closing, Dostoevsky, from The Brothers Karamazov. Yes, I’ve offered this one several times before, but it always seems to bear repeating; unfortunately, it never quite goes out of fashion. In this excerpt Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is addressing Christ, who has returned to earth but been arrested and imprisoned again, this time by the Inquisition:
Oh, never, never can [people] feed themselves without us [the Inquisitors and controllers]! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man?
Neo–I would add to your collection above the following quote that has been attributed to Stalin:
Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.”
Every day under Obama, Pelosi and Reid brings a fresh kick in the nuts, slap in the face, assault on Amerrica.
It’s too much to take on this daily basis.
I think that a lot of commenters here are basing their analysis on a false assumption, and that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate.
Of course declaring an assumption to be false does not make the assumption false.
Wolla Dalbo’s claim strikes me as an extreme generalization that is more suited for rhetoric than debate.
All Democrats? No care at all for the rule of law?
If this were true, I would expect that Democratic opponents would be jailed, their communication networks squelched or outlawed, and even mysterious deaths and assassinations.
Huxley,
WHy be so obvious? They get rid of people they don’t like in other ways, and they do whatever they want.
That’s the point, and it’s hard to argue the contrary at this point.
They are going to “pass” a bill without voting on it. For the President, House and Senate, the rules are meaningless. The rule is “whatever rule we want”.
Your side did this. The Democrats are killing the Republic. Period.
Democrats are working to eliminate all opposition. They may or may not succeed. If they don’t succeed, then they will have to live with the “no rules” rule when they are in the minority. By the very standards they have now set in stone (practically), the Republicans can systematically roll back and dismantle the liberal agenda enshrined in law over 40 years.
All they need is a Congress and a willing President, and then whatever they do the Democrats can have no compaints about or objections to.
So when are they going to declare elections unnecessary?
Bob – nothing as open and direct will happen. They will do just like their Soviet model did, for over 80 years: United People of America vote in 90% elections , choosing between candidates of the same party.
Been there, [nauseatingly] done that.
I am inclined to agree with Wolla Dalbo’s assessment of the Democrats. I have believed for some time that Republicans and Democrats were fundamentally different in their approach to power and it’s application. Republicans revere our Constitution and believe our political system to be as close to perfection as any can be. They would rather be in the majority, but they are not distressed unduly by minority status – viewing it as an uncomfortable part of a devine whole. They are in thrall to the process of democratic governance, and too many assume that Democrats are of a similar mind. But nothing could be further from the truth; for Democrats are after a prize that ultimately cannot be found within the confines of a constitutional republic. They are chasing a utopian dream that merits, in their minds, any method necessary for it’s realization. If that means perpetual power, then that is what they shall have. If it means the usurpation of our constitution and the rule of law, then that is easily justifiable.
Today’s Democrats see this Healthcare power grab as a corner-stone of the utopian society they wish to build. It is an essential for them, and we are about to see what means they believe are justified in meeting their goal.
We are at a crossroad between the form of government we have followed for 200+ years and a repeatedly discredited socialism – and the direction we take is by no means assured. Just how far are the Dems willing to go? Unfortunately, it is likely to be one step further than their Republican foes. Because they’ve always been playing two different games. The wildcard in all this are the people themselves – and how far they are willing to go to protect their freedoms. Things could get a little dicey. Perhaps sooner than anyone now supposes.
Huxley wrote, “All Democrats? No care at all for the rule of law?
If this were true, I would expect that Democratic opponents would be jailed, their communication networks squelched or outlawed, and even mysterious deaths and assassinations.”
Yes. All 59 Senators. 🙂 We can’t make the characterization about House Democrats….. yet…
I don’t know why your expectations mean deaths and assassinations. No. It isn’t Stalin’s Russia.
There is a grey area here and Neo was pretty clear in her post.
So many rules are being flagrantly and callously disregarded to get this Health Care bill passed.
Obama’s penchant for lying is even more than Bill Clinton’s.
I never thought I’d see a so-called “bi-partisan health care summit” with the president just feeling like he can say whatever he want and Harry Reid saying, “nobody’s talking about reconciliation”.
Mouth dropped open at that one. If you can point to somebody who expects death and openly writes about it – I’d understand your logic but I don’t Huxley. Again, I like you and I like most of your writings.
This is only indirectly (well, very indirectly indeed, insofar as it relates to the willingness of our Democratic president to engage in democratic debate) on topic — and I apologize for that — but I am working on a self-explanatory collection and thought commenters here might have some additional examples to add, or perhaps a link to some site that has already done this. My collection, as it currently stands, follows.
“The time for talk is over. It’s time to vote.” (March 2010, St. Louis, health care.)
“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line” (December 2009, Copenhagen, climate change.)
“The time for bickering is over.” (September 2009, addressing joint session of congress, health care.)
“The time for talking is through” (July 2009, “conference call with liberals,” health care.)
“The time for talk is over. The time for action is now.” (February 2009, at the Energy Department, stimulus.)
Anyone know of more?
The silver lining might be that Democrats-in-charge is so painful and unpalatable to enough Americans that they won’t give them the reins of power again for a long, long time.
This is what happens when Dems run the show – misery all around for everyone. We forgot that’s what they were like. This could be a kind of reminder.
What young person would vote for them now, knowing that their futures are being auctioned off to aging boomers?
On 2nd thought, don’t answer that.
Baklava: I think huxley suffers from a failure of imagination. If it doesn’t look exactly like the Soviets or the Nazis, then it’s nothing to worry about.
I look at it as – it is what it is…
We don’t have to imagine. Though it isn’t hard to imagine because we keep watching in disbelief at things said and done.
Baklava: and I watch in unhappy recognition…
The Road to Serfdom shows how this stuff works. Historical precedence is breathtakingly similar.
It doesn’t happen in months. It happens in decades.
We are on that path.
All Democrats? No care at all for the rule of law?
Sufficient numbers don’t care about the nicities of the rule of law, and many of them are at or near the levers of power. One of that number is working on a scheme to send the Senate HCR bill to the President for signature without having to go thru the trouble of actually voting on it. That was the chair of the freakin’ rules comittee.
If this were true, I would expect that Democratic opponents would be jailed, their communication networks squelched or outlawed, and even mysterious deaths and assassinations.
Massa got the boot. I suspect that if he had promised to vote yes he’d still be a seated member of the House, and the incidents in question swept quietly under the rug. The message is pretty clear: vote the way we want you, or, say, that’s a nice seat you have there, be a terrible shame if something happened to it…
This link is some evidence
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/03/09/milwaukee-police-ignored-acorn-voting-fraud-cases/
No. Not all. But how do we get justice?
More evidence.
No Dems say yes to reviving the gang of 14
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34165.html
Poor education is the problem.
Teachers don’t bother to tell you to not slam down five hundred aspirin at once.
Or that poisoning yourself is sufficient. You don’t have to shoot yourself in the back of the head and jump into a river after taking the poison to commit Chicagocide.
If only schools taught common sense, like in the old days.
They will do just like their Soviet model did, for over 80 years: United People of America vote in 90% elections , choosing between candidates of the same party.
Liberals are already trying this one on in California. A nominally “independent” group (which, by pure chance, is based in the Bay Area) is pressing to change primaries such that the top two recipients of votes in the primary face each other in the general election – regardless of their party affiliation.
How hard would that be for the Reds to game? SEIU, AFT, and AFCSME can hardly wait.
Time to bring out the tried and true quote that best describes whats going on.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
Bertrand Russell
SteveH:
Or Yeats:
Similar thought, no?
Mrs Whatsit:
“I won” (January 23, 2009, Washington, discussing bipartisanship with Eric Cantor)
Ok, great. So we (mostly) all agree that many of today’s Congressional democrats, especially the leadership do not care about the niceties of the rule of law.
I would add that, though there are the true leftist ideologues out there, many are of the stupid & ineffectual type, such as Kucinich. Witness this weeks forced vote on immediate withdrawl from Afghanistan, which was overwhelmingly defeated.
I would suggest that there is an even greater percentage of rather dim, venal shysters and petty crooks who would sell their mother’s wooden leg, if they could make some easy cash off of it. These folks will follow the prevailing winds of current popular opinion, especially if there’s some money to be made off of it. Remeber, the low regard of the public is not only the view of the true believer, it is the view shared by the con man about his mark. By this, they really show their own stupidity more than pointing out the public’s.
What’s the counter-balance? Why we are. After the election of 2008, I was somewhat depressed about much of our voting public, however as time has shown, we are not as stupid as the politicians would like to think. The tea parties, the failure of Obamacare, the death of the global warming scam and with it Copenhagen. O’s drop in the polls and the loss of the late Kennedy’s senate seat to a republican.
I suggest that not only is all not lost, but that the tide is turning in the favor of those who favor the rule of law, limited government and maximum personal freedom.
As far as today’s kid’s being dumbed down, I know from what I am seeing that that is simply not true of many kids. Have those of us who came of age in the early 60’s and 70’s forgotten the stupidities of our own youth? Hasn’t every generation said this about their successors?
Yes there are big fights ahead, but information, facts, truth will prevail as long as everyone stays engaged. The course of the future is in the hands of everyone of us and it’s ours to win, or loose.
I’m thankful for the internet, site’s like Neo’s and commmenters like you folks here, so quit bitching. You sound like a bunch of liberals!
Discussing is the word Tim.
Congressional democrats ignoring the rule of law is a monumentally counter-productive strategy.
Obama increasingly turning to executive orders is a rule-by-fiat strategy that is also counter-productive and after November, will be viewed as tyrannical by the great majority of the public because he will no longer be able to viably claim that he has a mandate…
In fact, the more egregious the offense, the greater and more long lasting will be their failure.
These consequences for democrats are absolutely certain.
And the Tea Party movement, Obama’s precipitous decline in public approval and polling which shows greatly decreased support for the Democrat’s agenda, all demonstrate just how counter-productive this administration and the Democrat’s leadership are with the American public.
That decline will accelerate into even deeper negatives as we move toward November, for the actions of the Democrats ensure that outcome.
When and if they force it down the public’s throat, the public is going to emphatically shove it back up their ass. The Democrats are committing political suicide before our very eyes and, we are witnessing political history in the making.
Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a majority of Congressional Democrats are leftists. That radicalism has led them to the classic fatal error of the extremist. That of assuming that their radicalism is supported by the liberal American public.
But it is neither shared by the public nor is it supported. The public has been duped and they are awakening.
They have lied, distorted and misled the public for years and now, out of hubris and ambition, they are beginning to reveal their true colors in a manner that cannot be ‘spun’, concealed nor denied.
They shall reap the whirlwind and are in the process of igniting a firestorm of political protest and civil disobedience that will prove to be impossible to extinguish. That firestorm shall sweep them from power and lay waste to all their dreams.
It is no longer a possibility, it is now a certainty.
The best lack all conviction
Actually, it’s the worst who at present lack convictions, but God willing they may receive some soon. /g
“They will do just like their Soviet model did, for over 80 years: United People of America vote in 90% elections , choosing between candidates of the same party.”
==============================
Did you see the Mark Steyn piece in the OC Register
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/health-237719-care-government.html
He says “I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible” and “The result is a kind of two-party {version of a} one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless” and “Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever-expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life”.
It’s worth reading that one.
I’m guessin the biggest one day awakening of the people was the day Obama uttered his “Acted Stupidly” comment.
Geoffrey Britain: I believe they made an error, but I think it was a different one. They didn’t think the American public supported their leftist agenda—if they had thought so, they wouldn’t have lied about it and pretended to be more centrist (particularly Obama). They just didn’t care, because they thought they had the power to override the wishes of the public. It’s that that may have been their error.
It remains to be seen—whether they in fact have that power, and to what ends they are willing to go to achieve it. And it remains to be seen whether the resultant damage can be undone by the elections of 2010 and 2012.
“They didn’t think the American public supported their leftist agenda–if they had thought so, they wouldn’t have lied about it and pretended to be more centrist (particularly Obama).”
Yes neo, that certainly does indicate that they knew enough of the public didn’t support their agenda to not have to lie about it. They however have been engaged in intellectual dishonesty for so long that I believe they thought their support among the public to be far higher than it actually is, so I’d say it’s probably a bit of both.
“They just didn’t care, because they thought they had the power to override the wishes of the public.”
That’s certainly true of the leadership but without the support of the ‘useful idiots’, overriding the public’s will has no chance of succeeding.
“It remains to be seen–whether they in fact have that power, and to what ends they are willing to go to achieve it. And it remains to be seen whether the resultant damage can be undone by the elections of 2010 and 2012.”
Of course time will tell. I believe however that in a country such as ours; a Constitutional representative democracy with the rule of Constitutional law literally woven into the cultural fabric of the nation and one possessed of a Bill of Rights that almost every citizen honors…ruling by fiat is simply not an option.
If the Democrat leadership is too delusional to realize this, reality shall provide them with an extremely rude awakening.
Tim P,
Yeah, just bitching. That’s it. That’s what we’re doing. Kind of like Thomas Jefferson. Or Benjamin Franklin. Or George Washington. Or James Madison. You know, all that bitchin’ gang.
Sorry. I understand from reading your posts that you’re at home here, and I don’t mean to be harsh. But I grow impatient with those who think that November 2010 is our chance to undo all this (Huxley, call your office! 🙂 ). Please recall that legislation (and I don’t mean just the health care monster), huge as it is, is just the most visible fraction of what these guys are doing. A lot of it is being done by regulation, under most of the radar. And anyone who thinks most, or even any, of that will be undone by a “throw the bums out election in November isn’t paying attention. By November it will be too late to make some of the most basic, essential changes. A powerful, entrenched bureaucracy is a very difficult thing to get rid of. Even Reagan was unable to mount a real effort to dismantle the Departments of Education and Energy–and he had pledged to do it, it would have been of a piece with his philosophy. I’m with Mark Steyn on this (and everything he writes is worth reading!). And I don’t know, it’s been nearly 30 years since I spent any time in Europe and I may not understand how bad it is over there, but it strikes me betimes that (with the possible exception of Old Blighty) what we see coming at us here is a lot worse than what the EU has. Maybe things over there really are worse than I know. And in a very real way, it doesn’t matter, because we are where we are, not where they are.
Geoffrey,
Believe me I hate saying things like this, and it’s getting to where I think it’d be a good idea to bite my tongue. But the unhappy truth is that if reality is going to provide the Democrats with an extremely rude awakening, I fear it’s going to have to be a reality that comes from somewhere in addition to the voting booth.
Hussein is a Marxist, anti-American, Islamist, Jew hater; as are the rest of the democrat party, the entire left and his supporters.
They loathe America with a burning passion, and intend to seize it in order to destroy it using any method they need to use.
As Mark Steyn has said, once they have nationalized health care the game is over, America as the founders intended it is gone, forever.
Unfortunately we find ourselves in this situation with a very, very, very weak defender of the country, the Republican party.
Baklava: I think huxley suffers from a failure of imagination. If it doesn’t look exactly like the Soviets or the Nazis, then it’s nothing to worry about.
neo: And if we are going to continue this kind of talk, I think you suffer from too active an imagination.
We disagree. How about leaving it at that and return to arguing the merits of our respective positions?
I am of course troubled by the actions of the Democratic leadership. I think they, in clear desperation, are playing hardball way too hard.
But outside this blog, I don’t see any agreement that the Democrats have revealed themselves as would-be Chavezes with no concern at all for the rule of law or American traditions.
“What is clearly before us” according to neo and most commenters here is not clear to the experts I consult in these murky waters.
I talked to a lawyer friend at lunch and he said that he didn’t see how Slaughter’s scheme could be constitutional and if it was somehow passed it would go straight to the Supreme Court.
My friend also mentioned that he had listened to Rush Limbaugh’s take and Rush just seemed bemused by the idea. Of course Rush has a team of lawyers and experts that he consults before does his shows, so I assume that’s not an uneducated opinion.
Sad as it seems, the best thing that could happen is if the EPA pushes ahead with their Carbon regulation scheme, the beaurocrats declare large portions of the coastlands off limits for fishing, the Dems push this UN gun treaty I keep getting emails about, amnesty -then maybe some more of the “get my news from CNN, ABC, etc” types would wake up.
As far as that discussion on the other article about RINOS- I say here that while I held my nose and pulled the lever for McCain, deep inside there was some element of satisfaction in me that the DEMs had won control over all the legislative and Executive branches. I thought it might help some people see what I had been seeing in the democratic party for years. A kind of coming out if you will.
too bad there are still a lot of people asleep. I dont know if enough are going to wake up.
Cap’n Rusy”: Yes! Thanks.
Hux, I am agnostic on the issue before the house, but I wouldn’t put too much faith in the views of “experts,” for any number of reasons.
First, because experts can and often do disagree. (How many Supreme Court or appellate decisions are unanimous?)
Second, all experts are wrong – sometimes woefully wrong – from time to time. (See, e.g., Long Term Capital Management, and more recently, Larry Summers’s crashing of the Harvard endowment.) The question is whether or not this is one of the times when they’re wrong, and that necessitates exercising one’s own judgment.
Third, experts, being human, are subject to human frailities, such as conflicts of interest and wishful thinking.
And fourth, it’s possible that the experts’ opinions may be rendered irrelevant by events.
So the views of experts, while interesting, are hardly dispositive, but instead represent one more piece of information.
Numbers USA is claiming that on March 21 there is a plan to send 100,000 pro amnesty demonstrators into DC.
Do you think this is an accident? I don’t.
I take back what I said about amnesty in my previous comment. I think that is the permanent game changer. Permanent replacement of voters the Democrats have lost.
Please, spare me.
In early 2009, the democrats owned the White House, had a veto proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House. The President’s poll numbers were in the stratosphere and the main-stream media was in swoon mode for him and the democrats in general. The republicans were being consigned to the political wilderness for the next generation.
In less than a year, starting with a minority (tea-party) that was at first ignored by the media and then later villified by them, this small minority has grown to a majority. Subsequently the democrat’s legislative agenda is in shambles and they are forced to think about resorting to methods like reconciliation to pass them. Methods which I may add would be certain political suicide.
And the democrat’s slide is accelerating. We did not resort to riots or threats. We simply confronted our elected representatives and reminded them who they worked for. No bombs, no fires, no gunshots.
Talk of the democrats deciding to shit-can the rule of law is silly. The reason it is that they can’t do it.
No way, no how. They do not have the votes even within their own party to pass Obamacare and daily they grow more fractured as they see their polling numbers tank. The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Sure, they would like to be able to take control, but they can’t. Why? Because they are spectacularly short-sighted, inept, AND corrupt! They are so horrid that they make the current crop of republicans look good. Do you really think that this crew of bumbling, shower-wrestling metro-boys and botox girls have the brains, nerve or will to pull off some kind of putsch? I am willing to predict that by November this talk will have been rendered moot.
Hard left ideologues are a far more serious threat in academia. What is the greatest threat to the republic presently is not hard-left ideology, but corruption in our politics. The greatest danger threat for damage to the country from these people comes from their stupidity.
OT – Holder death watch, part 47:
The drumbeat continues, inexorably.
I mean, anyone can forget about an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. Who can keep track of such trivia? Somehow he remembered the …other four.
Betsy and Harold,
Perhaps I haven’t made myself quite clear. I disagree with nothing you’ve said. I would add to it, not detract from it. The fact of the matter is that Obama and the Democrat leadership are both incompetent and are also extremely dangerous.
I am not suggesting that we relax or discount the danger to the republic that they pose. I am stating that most liberals while misguided, mean well and, that the Democrats are incompetent poseurs. Which in no way lessens the potentially disastrous consequences for the nation, of the misguided policies they advocate.
If in fact, the American public are as unaware and gullible as some fear, while the leftists as cunning and ruthless as some suppose, there is indeed the possibility that it may come to violent conflict.
If, and I pray not, another American revolution is necessary to retain our freedoms, then what needs to be done, shall be done. Communism and the tyranny it embodies shall not triumph, not now, not ever.
And if the ultimate sacrifice be required to prevent that triumph, then so be it. Some things are worth the sacrifice and so shall it ever be.
If Burke’s aphorism be true, that: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.” Then its corollary also is true: All that is necessary for good to triumph over evil is that good men be ready to pay the price necessary for that good to triumph…
America shall always produce such, for it stands for freedom and when free, the human race produces far more good than evil. Indeed, America’s very existence is proof of that assertion.
An eternal battle it may seem but some will always be ready to stand upon the ‘ramparts’ to defend freedoms’ very existence. Just look to our voluntary military for confirmation of that assertion.
We, no less than those who came before us.
That is true because the love of freedom beats eternal within the soul of man and neither the ‘nanny state’ mentality nor the malevolence of tyranny can long contain the desire for a freedom that humanity cannot thrive without.
Freedom springs from our free will and that, no man can deny to be part of humanity’s very nature; we truly “do not live by bread alone”. Dark ages there may be but freedom cannot long be denied, nor shall it be now.
Reagan’s ‘shining city on the hill’ is NOT merely an illusion for gullible idealists but rather the only reality worth fighting for and if necessary, even dying for because it is truly an inheritance worthy of being passed on to our children’s children.
Experts. Now, that’s what we need. Yessir. Let’s get us some experts.
Huxley, with all respect, the Left has been longing to put experts in charge of things for decades, now. That’s an enormous part of the problem. And incidentally, I don’t know how you define the term, but I’ve seen loads of other bloggers and their commenters (including the excellent Wretchard) address just the concerns we’re discussing here. The fact that there isn’t unanimity among them proves nothing about either your points or–to be fair–theirs. But you are wrong to discount the views of people who see things rather differently to the way you do.
Wilfred M. McClay wrote a very fine piece in the inaugural issue (Fall 2009) of National Affairs about the rule of experts, what they don’t know, and how the left has tried over generations now to turn governance over to them. I’ll always remember, just anecdotally, Janet Reno sitting before a Congressional committee (House or Senate, I don’t’ offhand recall which), speaking about the Waco debacle. She spoke, with all the authority of the Attorney General of the United States, about relying upon the input of “experts” in deciding what moves the Justice Department had made vis-a-vis the Branch Davidians. There should be no need to remind anyone of how well that turned out.
Well, I wouldn’t give you a nickel for an expert. And I say that as someone who knows a thing or two about a few esoteric subjects.
The fact–or at least the notion–that any event issuing from Slaughter’s scheme would head for the Supreme Court should tell you how great is the potential for damage here. Supreme Court rulings are not givens in their correctness. Never forget that the Supreme Court gave us, just for starters, Kelo. I for one am not sanguine about trusting the future of this democratic republic to the decisions of nine individual citizens, however fine their credentials.
Geoffrey,
I agree with you completely. The only (minor) caveat I would add is that, to the extent that most liberals have good intentions, they are useful idiots. First of all, as to the good intentions–well, once again, we all know what is said to be paved with those. Secondly, the people at the top are motivated by acquisition and use of power. Alinsky spoke of nearly nothing else, and as I understand him he was not shy about urging the use of those good-of-heart folk among us to further his, and his acolytes’, ends.
Betsybounds, i share your frustration. We’re baling water but our buckets aren’t yet bigger than the leak.
huxley: re your comment at 7:54 PM—
I am not tweaking you or pulling your chain and having a “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” argument. Since the argument we are having here is about prognostication and opinion, a person’s state of mind is relevant. I believe you do have a failure of imagination when it comes to the many varieties of tyranny possible, and the ways they might (note that word “might”) be achieved.
And I have seen many, many discussions of such things on other blogs, as I pointed out in a recent response to you in the comments section here (I even provided some links, I recall).
I would add that I have been around a long time, and I have never seen anything in this country remotely like the power grabs attempted by this administration (I noticed some of them way back during the campaign). There has been enough evidence of intent to make it necessary to be alert and aware and guard as best we can against these things (and I have laid out that evidence in post after post; I don’t have to repeat it in the comments section). Part of that process of guarding against encroachment on our liberty is writing about them, discussing the situation with other concerned people, and attempting to spread the word.
neo is right, hux. The gyrations and machinations around this bill are alarming and outside of Constitutional precedent as far as I know. If they succeed, we really are in uncharted territory. It may well come down to the Court, and if it does, all hell might break loose. The uproar over Bush v. Gore will seem quaint by comparison. I’m afraid we will get there because the Democratic leadership is reckless, stupid, and incompetent.
Talk to a liberal about any issue concerning ‘social justice’ (which covers a lot of ground) and their passion will nearly always exceed that of a conservative.
But there is one area where conservatives exceed the passion of liberals. And that is in the area of the founding principles of this country. That is ‘hallowed’ ground and none dare tread on it without consequence.
Threaten those principles, present a clear and present danger to the very existence of the American way of life and leftist/liberals will discover that they seized a tiger by the tail.
That is what the left’s ideology does not allow them to appreciate and, that is what shall keep the left from seizing power from the people.
Far more liberals cherish this country’s freedoms than the left realizes. Duping gullible Americans is not the same thing as getting them to knowingly agree to the abandonment of those values.
well, well, well…..from AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_immigration
huxley re your comment at 8:06 PM:
Once again you are attacking a straw man. You write about your friend the lawyer and Rush Limbaugh, who both seem to think the Slaughter plan is unconstitutional and won’t pass muster. Is this supposed to somehow be different from what I have said on this blog? Note that my post on the Slaughter ploy began with the following phrase: “I must confess I don’t understand how this could possibly get by…” and then goes on to quote from a link that describes the Slaughter plan.
So I guess the lawyer, Rush, and I agree.
Once again, the issue is intent. Not all these attempts will be successful. Perhaps even most of them won’t. But some of them might. And remember again, the only reason HCR is not yet the law of the land is the death of Ted Kennedy and the resulting special election (including the irony that the Dems in Massachusetts changed the rules earlier in a way that was beneficial to them when a Republican was the governor, but made the election necessary this time, even though there’s now a Democratic governor).
Also I find it very interesting that Slaughter is not just some random Congress member, but is the Chair of the House Committee on Rules. And yet she clearly has no respect for the rules or the Constitution.
Obama’s assurance to the Hispanic Caucus that he will pursue immigration reform is a perfect example of the internal pressures assailing the Democrat’s.
The Caucus has threatened to vote against the Senate version of the Health Care Reform Bill if Obama doesn’t insist that it be revised to include immigration reform…but he cannot do that, as it would force the process back to square one and a whole new vote.
They know that, so the Caucus’ demand is a political ploy to force Obama to publicly commit to making immigration reform his next priority. He’s now done that but it’s just another lie, this time to fellow Democrats.
After Obamacare is settled (which it won’t be, even if passed) he desperately needs to appear to focus upon the economy. Even though he does want to get all those illegals on the voter rolls as near-certain Democrat votes but immigration reform is far too contentious an issue to pass. Even Bush’s liberal-friendly legislation couldn’t pass, Obama will have no better luck on this issue.
So if he does give it real attention he alienates even more voters by demonstrating that his priorities are skewed.
This is noteworthy because it’s an example of the jockeying for influence and responsiveness to special interests that Obama is contending with and, it’s only going to get worse as special interest’s patience wears thin. Again, it’s a case of “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight”.
It is the disrespect for the rule of law that shows me I don’t want these people anywhere near Washington D.C. anymore – yet they still are there.
How can we protect ourselves from these people.
And…
How can we Californians protect ourselves from the legislature here in Sacramento??
These people aren’t leading – they are taking freedoms and destroying the free market daily.
That every day taking is an every day tyranny.
Sure it might be a soft tyranny without Stalin’s tactics – but it’s wrong.
As I have said before, the problem is that many of us commenting are using the wrong lens, the wrong template to evaluate the situation.
For some commenters here it seems that the assumption is that, while they might bend the rules and skate perilously close to the edge, Democrats will, in the end, respect the rules, and work within the boundaries set by the system.
The other viewpoint, which I subscribe to, is that if that is what it takes to win, they will jettison the rules and do what they damn well please–Democracy be damned–’cause their stupid constituents will come to their senses after the bill is passed, and realize what a benefit this bill will be to them.
In actuality, if this bill is rammed through, I think the Democrats will be cursed for many an election cycle, and our Democratic process will be damaged, perhaps beyond repairing. For once such a weakness is made in its carefully constructed fabric, once we have been so close to the edge or over it, further generations of legislators will be tempted to return to that weak spot–like your tongue returns to worry at a bothersome tooth–and, eventually, someone with extraordinary ambition and a huge appetite for power will push through that weak area and into a whole new world of totalitarianism.
Neo, I agree with you for the most part on this point that within our lifetimes regarding this administration’s power grabs. However, stepping back and looking at a broader swath of time, there have certainly been other administrations that have made this one pale by comparison.
Some examples that readily come to mind are Woodrow Wilson. This great liberal leader warned us in 1916 about, “hyphenated Americans [who] have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out.” He was referring to Americans of German ancestry.
Wilson was determined to get an apathetic America into a war that it was loath to join. To this end he set up, by executive order in 1917 the ‘Committee on Public Information’, It consisted of the secretaries of state, war, and the navy, with the journalist George Creel as civilian chairman (again we see a compliant MSM lackey, some things never change). Walter Lippmann was Creel’s right hand man in the committee. The committee was responsible for uniting public support behind the war effort. A far-flung organization abroad and at home was created and addressed the war issues with pamphlets, films, cables, posters, and speakers known as Four-Minute Men. This committee’s sophisticated use of propaganda became a model for future government efforts to shape mass opinion. Imagine if George Bush had tried that.
Let’s move on to the Espionage act of 1917. From Wikipedia, this act “made it a crime for a person:
* To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.
* To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today’s dollars) and 20 years in prison (almost 22.5 years in today’s years in respect to life expectancy)….Thus, while “espionage” is usually defined as a clandestine activity of getting secret information and passing it on to the enemy, the law vastly extended the meaning of the term to include also the openly carried expressing of political opinions, without revealing any secret, and by persons who had no connection with the enemy – as long as the expressing of such opinions was construed as helping the enemy.
The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any anti-war mobilization constituted a real threat to the American war effort.”
Again, imagine trying to pull this off today. Even right after 9/11 this would have been shot down by the vast majority of citizens.
Couple Wilson’s effort to get us into the war with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and the general fear of communism, the radical labor movement in this country at the time and we enter into the red scare of 1919. Imagine, again from Wiki,
“In late April 1919, approximately 30 booby trap bombs were mailed to a cross-section of prominent politicians, including the Attorney General of the United States, as well as justice officials and financiers, including John D. Rockefeller…In June 1919, the Galleanists managed to blow up eight large bombs nearly simultaneously in several different U.S. cities. These bombs were much larger than the April bombs. One used twenty pounds of dynamite, and all were wrapped or packaged with heavy metal slugs designed to act as shrapnel. Among the intended victims were government officials who had endorsed anti-sedition laws and deportation, as well as judges who had sentenced anarchists to prison. The homes of Mayor Harry L. Davis of Cleveland, Judge W.H.S. Thompson, Massachusetts State Representative Leland Powers, Judge Charles C. Nott of New York, and Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, already the target of a mail bomb in April, were all attacked…Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, twice targeted by anarchist bombs, organized the nationwide series of police actions known as the Palmer raids in November 1919 and January 1920. Of the thousands arrested–a mix of violent radicals, miscellaneous foreigners, and innocent bystanders of all sorts—more than 500 resident aliens were deported. The bombing campaign added more fuel to the ongoing national hysteria known as the Red Scare of 1919-1920, a widespread fear that radicals planned to overthrow the American government and replace it with a Bolshevist dictatorship modeled on that established by the Russian Revolution.”
Can an ineffectual Obama and his coterie of corrupt lackeys & opportunists really compare to this?
Could you imagine the hysteria if this was happening today? This is just one example that quickly comes to mind. There are more, and worse! Yet the republic somehow survived.
While I agree that Obama and the leftist democrats present a danger, I realize that their ideas (dangerous) do not match their abilities. Additionally, as I said above, the corruption of these folks are a greater danger, at home and abroad.
I do not advise inaction, but just the opposite. The type that has been engaged in in the last 1+ years.
And Betsybounds, while I like and read your comments I have to disagree with your statement
I ask you if not an election to throw these bums out, just what do you propose? Yes, an election by itself is not the answer, but it is where the answer starts.
Baklava,
Collectively, we’ve elected these people, so protecting ourselves from them can only be done through legal and parliamentary maneuvers and the court of public opinion, the power of which should not be underestimated. In November when Obama and the Democrats can no longer credibly claim a ‘mandate’ ignoring the will of the peope will be much harder to justify.
Wolla Dalbo,
Democrats blatantly jettisoning the rules and doing what they damn well please is not just counter-productive, it will generate an equal but opposite reaction. Calls for impeachment, mass marches on Washington, millions of letters, calls and emails. Civil lawsuits and civil disobedience and mass protests…again, a firestorm of political protest that grows every day is what the Democrats will be facing, and one far more intense than the Vietnam war protests.
On another note, the mid-term elections are going to be of far greater long-term import than is generally being credited. It will be a massive defeat for the Democrats, they are going to lose both the House and the Senate. This is not a possibility but is now a virtual certainty, as too many factors ensure it.
But it will not be just the Party that suffers discreditation, Obama’s political ‘capital’ will be irrevocably and greatly lessened as well. He’ll be judged a ‘loser’ and another Carter, which is a label from which he shall never recover.
That will result in Obama instantly becoming a lame duck President, and in his third year rather than the normal fourth. He has already proven that his ideology will not allow him to move toward the center. Which means that his only option in continuing to pursue his agenda is to try to rule-by-fiat through the issuance of executive orders. But that road leads to impeachment, charges of racism and finally, some real confrontation and clearing of the air about race in America.
But whether Obama twists ineffectually in the political winds of disapproval or effectively tries to rule-by-fiat, he will be replaced no later than in 2012.
More importantly, the cause of liberalism will have suffered a grievous blow, potentially one from which it shall not recover for a generation or more.
They will be thoroughly discredited, having had their chance and having proven themselves to be dangerously incompetent poseurs.
The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any anti-war mobilization constituted a real threat to the American war effort.
What a crappy piece of show legislation. There was no enforcement mechanism. No one was tried under it. It was wrong, wrong wrong and deserved to be fought tooth and nail. It affected no one, but definitely brought a “chill” to free speech.
Obamacare is worse, will cost more and will affect everyone.
Obamacare is up there in cost, folly and rights-violation with Prohibition.
At least they followed the rules to ammend the Constitution with that crap….
Yeah, every so often, the do-gooders do their worst on us and we gotta fight them every time with votes, with money, with ideas and with disobedience.
But that road leads to impeachment, charges of racism and finally, some real confrontation and clearing of the air about race in America.
Cities will burn. The streets will run red. I don’t want that.
“”But that road leads to impeachment, charges of racism and finally, some real confrontation and clearing of the air about race in America””
A showdown with liberals and their obsession with race may be a sure bet on where we’re heading. They truly believe not giving leeway in the area of political transgressions toward this black man is racist in itself.
Thats why they hailed Obama as the new savior. He was going to provide immunity from arcane political rules and a center right people thwarting their utopian vision yet again. And at 45% approval with all thats going on, this may yet get proven to be a successful strategy for them.
@ Occam’s Beard 8.33 pm
I want to double down on our Holder bet. 5 more bucks says that this particular infraction is too close to the core of the progressive narrative to be repudiated. By the time Holder and his friends are finished, they will have convinced the Democratic base that volunteering to defend terrorists, and making propaganda on their behalf, is more patriotic than volunteering to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. Danny Glover and Tim Robbins will make a commercial about it, just wait and see.
Tim P,
Thanks for your long post and the research that went into it.
And those of others, too.
When I say that I think waiting til November and then throwing the bums out isn’t going to be good enough, I’m thinking of something like what Mark Steyn has posited–that once this awful thing is enshrined in law and regulation (and I’m not talking only about health care), it’ll just be a matter of who is elected to administer the Left-wing state every couple of years, and dismantling it will never be on the table.
With respect to some of the other matters–how shall we make any changes to the perhaps-imminent EPA regulation of all CO2 emissions? That’s not the sort of thing that’s responsive to the ballot box. Regulations, once imposed, have a life of their own that’s independent of electoral and legislative decisions. The supporting enforcement bureaucracy, once emplaced, will simply go on auto-pilot and get to work. I work in a business which operates largely in the areas of RCRA and CERCLA environmental enforcement, and I can tell you that the entire regulatory regime has no connection whatever to political winds. These guys are set and entrenched like bricks in concrete, and that’s it.
The administration is moving in a good many of these kinds of areas, and I sometimes think that they’re counting on health care to be, among all the other hopes and intentions for it, a distraction. The Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division is gearing up to call school districts onto the carpet over the old “disparate impact” goad. If they get moving on that, how will completely replacing the Congress in November 2010 going to change it?
There are other examples, many of which I do not doubt we have not even heard yet. So–no, I don’t think the ballot box holds the whole key to this nation’s salvation from the Left now in power.
If health care passes, it will very likely be before November. We’ve got to stop it before then. We need to be ready to demonstrate, engage in civil disobedience, in advance of November and soon. But just as I would not discount the coming vote, neither would I suggest we rely on it.
AP is reporting that Obama is delaying his Asia trip to work on health care. That ought to give us an inkling of how hard these wizards are about to push this thing. And if the prize is at all proportional to the effort that’s being put into winning it, it ain’t just about health care.
Betsybounds, what you’re alluding to is how the real power is entrenched in bureacracies and shuffling around symbolic figureheads like out front politicians changes little.
Whole cloth dismantling of entrenched bureacracies has to happen at some point to even begin turning the tide.
Betsy:
Your 9:15 post is crystallizing essence: It ain’t just about health care.
Interestingly, in his diary Dostoevky planned another title for his novel: not “Karamazov Brothers”, but “Atheism”. As for Obama’s fanaticism for the Bill, it was brilliantly named “Obama as Ahab, strapped to Moby Dick”. He would rather sink, pushing the Bill, taking with him his party, than save his presidency by abandoning it (like Clinton did).
All: Experts was a somewhat poorly chosen word.
By experts I meant people with knowledge, training, and track records whose judgments I’ve come to trust — people like Michael Barone, Charles Krauthammer, Jennifer Rubin, Pete Wehner, Jonah Goldberg, etc.
They too do their best to assess what Obama and the Democrats are doing as well as their intent. My experts certainly are concerned about what the Obami are doing and reject their policies.
But my experts have voiced nothing approaching the overheated rhetoric I read in this post about Democrats as Chavezes intending tyranny with no respect at all for the rule of law and traditions of this country.
And I don’t see that either, so I dont say it and I continue to disagree.
Once again, the issue is intent.
neo: And once again, absent clear declarations of intent, neither of us can know that intent, at least not with the certainty I keep hearing here.
Frankly you’ve done such a poor job of reading my intent, that I see no reason to trust your conclusions about the intent of others.
The other problem I see in this topic is the repeated easy slides from shades of gray to absolute black.
Thus, “Democrats are much less concerned with the rule of law than I like” to “Democrats don’t care at all for the rule of law.”
I read claims like that and I understand that the writer is very concerned about something but I don’t mistake it for a reasoned appeal.
People and politicians concerned about the rule of law should take a good look at the strikes and riots going on in Greece and on California campuses. Expanding entitlements and social spending with borrowed money is a fool’s enterprise. Once begun, such things have a life of their own. Feeding bears is not particularly dangerous until you run out of food. Then the bears eat you.
“”I read claims like that and I understand that the writer is very concerned about something but I don’t mistake it for a reasoned appeal””
Huxley
Has there ever been a case where appeals warning of the outrageous seemed reasonable before the outrageous happened?
I’d just point out the track record of those warning of a possible democrat dive over the tyrannical cliff are pretty much the same people who prophetically warned of all the outrageousness that occured in 2009.
I’d just point out the track record of those warning of a possible democrat dive over the tyrannical cliff
SteveH: Who?
Sure, there was plenty to be concerned about during Obama’s campaign and there were plenty of people who issued warnings of varying sorts — I was too and spoke out — but I don’t remember people other than from the far right who have been decrying Democratic tyranny since the fifties, if not thirties.
Anyone who was making such a claim in 2008 already had is or her mind made up. Even neo waited until she had more evidence to reach the conclusion she has.
huxley: frankly, your misreading of me is becoming tiresome and offensive.
In all of our exchanges, I do not believe I have ever said I know what your intent is. Actually, I assume that your intent is to have a discussion of the issues, particularly the issue of what Obama and company may or may not try to do (their intent). I have answered your charges, pointed out where I think you err, and said I believe you have a failure of imagination about the varieties of tyranny (which has nothing to do with your intent).
I believe that the only time I have ever even mentioned anything that could be interpreted as involving your intent was when I asked the following question:
In that comment, I was not even guessing what your intent might be, I was merely referring to what you had been doing on this blog up to that point (and I was wondering why you were doing so). You had (and still have) been saying that you know that Obama and company are so incompetent that it doesn’t matter much what they might intend, as well as stating that those who think otherwise here are both incorrect and alarmist. And you don’t state it in tentative terms; you seem quite certain of it.
Because you have been a regular and valued commenter here, I have taken no small time and trouble to respond to you and answer you, giving examples as well. I am beginning to notice a pattern in which you fail to respond to many of the substantive issues raised in response to you, as well as continuing to misrepresent much of what I have said here. This comes perilously close to troll territory, especially the latter (and that describes your behavior, not your intent).
Personally I try to be careful to distinguish facts, opinions, probabilities, reasons, beliefs, arguments, and proofs.
I’ve been convinced of many things, large and small, personal and impersonal, that I came to discount later.
One of the most difficult things IMO to discern accurately is the intent of others.
I want to double down on our Holder bet. 5 more bucks says that this particular infraction is too close to the core of the progressive narrative to be repudiated.
Oblio, deal.
I don’t believe “progressives” have any principles. They’ll say and do anything that they think will advance them toward their goal. Ends, means, and all that. See Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Huxley,
Look at what these people are trying to do, and how they’re trying to do it. Look at these things carefully, and honestly. I mean HONESTLY. Can you do that? OK, now. Remember where we get by following the road paved with good intentions.
Now. Tell me what on earth difference their intentions make to where this country is headed.
Incidentally, if you ARE operating as a troll (and I’ve considered that possibility from time to time–sorry, but nevertheless), I wonder what your intentions might be. Taking names, maybe.
OK, shouldn’t go there. OK.
Let’s change the subject. How many angels do you suppose can dance on the head of a pin, and do you think they intend to be there?
Now they’re trying to jam the student loan take-over into the health bill. What is going on here?
And I don’t give a flying fig for their intentions.
BTW, I remember that it wasn’t long ago that Huxley was pointing to the defeat of the health care bill as evidence that Obama was an incompetent failure. Intentions weren’t much a part of it, as I recall.
Oh, um, wait a minute. . . .
In all of our exchanges, I do not believe I have ever said I know what your intent is
neo: What I had in mind was your comment:
That sounded to me like your declaration of my intent.
In any event, I suggest focusing on the post and not the poster.
That post came out wrong. My home internet is down at home and I’ve been working at cafes.
In all of our exchanges, I do not believe I have ever said I know what your intent is
neo: What I had in mind was, say, your comment:
huxley: no, you used the word “Reich” to create a strawman to misrepresent the words of others, which you could then feel smug about knocking down.
http://neoneocon.com/2010/02/10/obama-and-his-inner-circle-the-alter-egos/
That sounded to me like your declaration of my intent.
In any event I suggest focusing on the post and not the poster.
I am beginning to notice a pattern in which you fail to respond to many of the substantive issues raised in response to you,
neo: I don’t answer everything, nor does anyone else. But I answer a fair amount .
And from my point of view I don’t get answers on my issues either.
Such as my point that I still don’t see how people know Obama’s intentions here with respect to tyranny. I get that people here are convinced. I agree that it could be the case.
But I don’t know. I’m not convinced. When I look around on the net I don’t see other people who are paying attention sounding that alarm.
Sure they don’t like healthcare, sure they don’t like parliiamentary trickery but they aren’t talking about tyranny, they are not claiming Democrats have no care at all about the rule of law.
re: Incompetence vs Intention
I think one can make statements about competence without reading minds about intent. If someone says they want to do something, they have the resources to do something, then fail repeatedly, then from what I can tell that person is incompetent.
Example: Obama went to Copenhagen to get the Olympics for Chicago. He failed. That strikes me as an incompetent waste of POTUS’s time. He either should have had the competence to make that happen or he shouldn’t have gone at all.
My phone repair guy doesn’t come until Monday. My participation will be spotty until my connection problem is solved.
huxley: As I assume you know, since you’ve been a commenter here so long, I certainly do focus on the post and not the poster. But when a commenter gets very close to troll territory, as you have for quite some time now, it becomes necessary to focus on the poster. Creating strawmen not once, but repetitively, is what I’m talking about when I say “troll territory.” You have been a valuable and long-term commenter here, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I would like the strawman stuff to stop, and I certainly think you have the intelligence and insight to do so.
hux, I know this is your particular stumbling block, but you need to climb down gracefully. Everybody infers intent, and all of us are wrong at times. We are all amateur psychologists. We can’t help it. It’s part of the human condition. Please agree to disagree and then leave it alone.
And neo, hux has been beating a dead horse and I can understand your irritation, but “troll” isn’t in it. Neo’s Place without huxley would be a poorer place.
Oblio: agreed—that’s why I said “close to troll territory” (originally at 1:03 PM) rather than “troll” itself. I mention this because I want to make it clear I do not think that huxley is a troll.
Yes, neo, you were very clear. One of the things I admire about you is the clarity of your thinking.
huxley: Such as my point that I still don’t see how people know Obama’s intentions here with respect to tyranny.
No…. No, of course not; a mugger stabbing you in the heart is of course an itinerant doctor who knows you have a blockage in the aorta and wishes to heal you.
Of course one can never know the intent of anyone! When I piss down your neck, it’s only a friendly warning that it could rain later today.
In the same fashion, Obama’s stated intentions to “spread the wealth around” and “the time for debate is over”, means that he is a supporter of the Free Market who values disparate opinions.
Ok, its 9:00 in the Saturday morning where I’m at, and I’ve gotten my cup of coffee, and throwing caution to the wind, I will now try to wade into this interesting confict.
Let me carefully try to untangle what I think I see here, which may be right or wrong… but here it is:
1. Many commenters have expressed concern over both the overall agenda of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, and in particular the latest effort, notwithstanding the opposition of the majority of the public, to enact the so-called “Obamacare” health care program.
2. Huxley, who I should add I greatly respect as an individualistic voice among the commenters, has taken issue with some statements by other commenters which appear to imply knowledge of the intent of Obama and his allies in Congress in carrying out their policies, and which state this knowledge of intent with language that is excessively overbroad.
(To wit: Wolla Dalbo’s comment to the effect that “that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate.“, which caused Huxley’s response that “Wolla Dalbo’s claim strikes me as an extreme generalization that is more suited for rhetoric than debate).
3. Huxley’s issue then caused a rebuttal by many commenters to the effect that, in their opinion, it is quite acceptable in many circumstances to infer from the behavior of certain people (in this case Obama and his allies in Congress) what their intent is, and that in this situation, such intent is one directed at violating the rule of law and imposing on an unwilling public an unnecessary expansion of government power.
Okay… I’m going to hit “submit” on this, refill my cup of coffee, and submit a follow up post.
For what its worth, and I hope this helps somehwat, it appears that both sides have had the tendency to resort to hyperbole (i.e., per Wikipedia, “is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.”)
I’ve noticed this in the manner that each side of this debate has quoted the other’s statements, and then in the response to said statements. For example, Wolla Dalbo said:
In responding to Wola Dalbo, Huxley said:
Now, of Huxley’s comments, the first two paragraphs are rational criticisms of Wolla Dalbo’s prior statement. One can agree or disagree with it, but its a rational critique.
But then you get to the fourth paragraph, and here is a statement which speaks of assasinations, jailing political prisoners, and myseterious deaths. I would suggest this is hyperbolic because Wolla Dalbo never mentioned such activities in her post. W.D. writes only of violating the rule of law, which is not necessarily implicative of assasinations, mysetrious deaths, and political imprisonment.
Then, further on, there is this comment from Gray, responding to Huxley’s assertion that “. . . I still don’t see how people know Obama’s intentions here with respect to tyranny.”
I would suggest there is quite a bit of hyperbole here too. If this were as simple as someone stabbing you in the heart or pissing on you, then we wouldn’t be discussing this. I realize statements like this are largely the result of losing patience with Huxley’s position on this, but making such an overstatement isn’t going to change the fact thet Huxley simply doesn’t see this as equivalent to being pissed on or to being stabbed at with a knife.
My point is that we’ve moved from the very specific, concrete topic of our political leaders’ intent, to whether such intent involves assassination, to whether inferring such intent is equivalent to being pissed on. Maybe, in this circumstance, hyperbole has failed to clarify the topics being discussed, and muddied the water further.
One more post coming.
Ok, If I havent managed to piss everyone off with my comments thus far (which was not my intent, I assure you all), here’s my final take on this:
I understand what Huxley is trying to say. If I understand it correctly, it is that some commenters have been inferring the worst intent based on the actions of Obama and his allies in Congress, and have applied such inference too broadly to “all Democrats.”
I agree with the latter part of this. It is too broad to apply to “all” Democrats one particular view. One of Neo’s recent posts contains a link to an article from two Democrat pollsters, Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, which stand in stark contrast to what the present Denocrat leadership is doing. So, that takes care of “all.”
As for the inference that some Democrats, particulalry Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and those allied with them have the intent to subvert the rule of law, my view was expressed in a similar comment at the very end of another of Neo’s posts.
Andrew M. Garland suggested the following scenario:
In regard to this scenario: First, I would actually agree with Garland (and many other here) that inferring intent from the actions of others in common practice, and sometimes a “matter of survival.”
But, secondly, as I said in regard to this scenario originally :
Let me provide a better example: Lets say were all on a cruise ship, and the captain is about to direct the ship right into an iceberg. We can all argue about the “intent” of the captain. In the end, we really cannot decifer whether he is actually intebnding harm, or whether he is just a total fool. He could be either.
What we do know is that the ship is being directed in a manner that most passengers believe, with good reason, will result in the destruction of the ship at worst (or at best, the sustaining by the ship of substantial damage), and the probable (or at least possible) loss of life.
We do not need to reach a conclusion as to whether this captain actually intends harm. We can accept that he may not mean harm, and that he is only a fool. In either case, the passengers of the ship are in the grave situation of needing to prevent the captain from carrying out his directions. In either case, he must be stopped.
It could be argued that even if the captain does not intend harm, he is at least criminally negligent (a category which does not require specific intent). ( “”Negligence” is not the same as “carelessness”, because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. “)
I think, with regard to Obama and his allies in Congress, that I cannot come to the conclusion that they intend harm. In essence, I agree with Huxley on this. But they are definitely creating harm, and I agree that the actions they are pursuing are such that alarm is called for. I believe in using all legal means possible, from protest to, if possible, recall petitions, to prevent them from passing this Obamacare monstrosity that most of the American people do not want.
Okay.. sorry for the long-windedness of this. I will try to restrain myself from these type of long, multi-volume posts. I hope i have not offended anyone, as that was not my intent.
(Also, it has occurred to me that I may have employed some hyperbole in this post with my “ship hitting the iceberg” concept. If thats so, I apologize, especially to Huxley and Gray, since I took them to task in my prior post. I suppose we can now have a long debate on what “hyperbole” means.)
Just looking at historical examples of leftist governments, even like “soft socialism” by British Labor party or Canada, we see that this ideology trumps and undermines legal principles at every turn. Such programs of large-scale social engineering by their essense incompatible with rule of law, irrespectful of presence or absence of actual intent to undermine it.
That’s some strong coffee, J.L. You are correct that we need to indulge in a lot less hyperbole. The reality is alarming enough.
What Sergey said.
J.L.,
Nice work. I’m in the middle of doing some things and can’t take much time now, but I do have some thoughts on these matters.
For now, though, I will simply say that I think Huxley has indulged in some remarkably graceless characterizations and criticisms of others on these threads. For example, he has gone out of his way–really–to hit Artfldgr. Artfldgr has some stylistic quirks that put some people off, but he always speaks frankly and from an apparent wealth of unhappy personal experience. Huxley’s attitudes towards him have led me to conclude that Huxley is a snob. I don’t know precisely what intent can be read into that, so I’ll just make the statement and let it stand.
Not all these attempts will be successful. Perhaps even most of them won’t. But some of them might. And remember again, the only reason HCR is not yet the law of the land is the death of Ted Kennedy and the resulting special election –Neo
It’s like the fight against the jihad boys. They taunt us, with some truth, that “YOU have to be successful in thwarting us ALL of the time. WE only have to be successful ONE time.”
The very fact that the Dimwit leadership would consider the Slaughter option, and publicly, is horrifying. Think about what this means! It means they are so far gone in their corruption and malfeasance and (especially) their lust for power that they don’t give a Damn about our Constitution, the rule of law, or the principles of democracy. In fact, they’re willing to fling these down and dance upon them.
That means they’re capable of anything.
Ponder That, folks.
Yes, I hope that this particular attempt will be a damp squib. But even their consideration of such an unconstitutional maneuver is a terrible portent.
My father is 82. He told me, when Hussein was elected, “I feel like I’ve lost my country.” And this sort of monstrousness was what he was talking about.
Oblio: Everyone infers intent but the problem is that it is easy to forget that one has made an inference and then proceed as though that inference were the only truth, when in fact the inference might be wrong or that there are other ways to infer that intent.
Then it’s easy to slide into confirmation bias where one mostly notices information that confirms one’s bias and mostly ignores information to the contrary.
In one of neo’s responses to me she spoke of “what is clearly before us” as though her perception were so self-evidently true that we would all agree. But I don’t agree and there is a world of people, non-Democrats even, that don’t.
What to do?
It’s important to me to think clearly. I’ve been convinced of all sorts of things in my life and later revised my thinking substantially.
J.L.: An admirable recapitulation, mostly on the mark.
I disagree, however, that the more outre possibilities I mentioned in response to Wolla Dalbo’s claim are out of bounds. If Democrats have no respect for the rule of law, where and why would they draw the line at those things?
It’s a serious matter to accuse others of having no respect for the law.
I say more in the current tyranny topic. http://neoneocon.com/2010/03/16/heres-what-tyranny-looks-like-at-the-beginning/