So an Obama aid, Peter Orszag, argued today that we need less democracy in The New Republic, and the Democratic North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue argued that that we should suspend the Congressional Elections. Two Democrats, on the same day come out with statements about the evils of democracy…I sense a new talking point for the left.
So what are they arguing? Orszag seems to be saying that all of the problems and gridlock in Washington is a problem of democracy. Apparently this idiot does not understand the difference between democracy (where the power is invested in the public on a good day and the mob on most days) and a republic (where power is invested in representatives of the people). He doesn’t understand that we have a Democratic-Republic, where representatives are chosen democratically and that the rules of how those representatives act are not necessarily supposed to be democratic (the filibuster for instance). The gridlock and inability he is complaining about is the result of representatives, not of democracy. It’s also the result of what’s called a system of checks and balances which were literally designed to make sure things didn’t get done as the Founding Fathers had a major distrust of active, large, and non-representative government. It’s supposed to have gridlock. If anything it hasn’t had nearly enough gridlock in the last century.
Now, Orszag is correct that John Adams and many of the Founding Fathers had a fear of democracy because it often lead to a tyranny of the mob. They only had to look to the French and their failed revolution to see what happens when you put the mob in charge. And if Orszag was arguing that we needed less democracy and more republicanism, I’d be right there with him. The popular election of Senators has led to nothing but Senators who are more corruptible as the easiest way to bribe a politician is through campaign funds (which you wouldn’t have if you we overturned the foolishness of 17th Amendment); it has led to statesmen who are more extreme in the house of Congress that was supposed to be more moderate; it has made the people who pick Supreme Court Justices and ratify treaties not the most qualified but only the most popular. (I’m just saying that in a world where governors nominate candidates and state legislators ratify those choices, dimwits like McCain and Reid would only get to see the Senate on the capital tour). Also if we had a little less mob democracy and more republicanism we wouldn’t have volumes of useless ballot initiatives every year. On the other hand I think the people should keep the right to vote on overturning laws and recalling politicians (even Senators that they didn’t vote on) this power of veto would give them control over the actions of their representatives, but wouldn’t lead to the insane level of ballot initiatives and lawsuits and legislators overturning ballot initiatives and the people passing more initiatives to counter those laws (or what I call a typical day in sunny California).
But Orszag isn’t arguing for more republicanism. He’s arguing for more central power at the cost of our democratic-republic. The only way to stop the gridlock of legislative bodies is to give final authority not to a house of parliament, but to one man. Orszag’s article is little more than Anthony offering Julius the crown in front of the masses, only far more crass and stupid (Caesar, while a dictator, was never accused of being so incompetent it’s a miracle he had the IQ to perform basic motor functions). Orszag is arguing to give the President the powers that are expressly given to other branches. In other words scrap the Constitution. He may not say that in so many words, but is there any other way to interpret what he is saying? He may say he wants semi-independent commissions and boards that would propose ways out of economic troubles that would only go for up or down votes…but as we’ve seen so often in the last couple of years czars and boards and commissions are tools of an executive branch…and to relinquish power vested by the Constitution to the legislative is just about the worst idea imaginable. First off Congress doesn’t need to do anything other than re-assert its authority as the most powerful and central branch of government, cut the budget, fire the czars, strip the boards of power, and leave Obama a whining lame duck. That will immediately jumpstart the economy.
But then we also have the governor of North Carolina who actually said:
“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.”
Ever notice how “get over the partisan bickering” means “shut up and do what we the Democrats say, and if you dare disagree than you’re an unpatriotic bastard who supports tax cuts for the rich by killing poor people, and if you dare question our divine leader then you’re a racist!”…but I may be reading a bit into that. Then there is that next part “focus on fixing things.” No, thank you. I’ve seen Bush and Obama try to fix things—they’ve only made it worse. Stop fixing things. It’s broken because you “fixed” it. Congress and government know nothing about the economy. LEAVE IT ALONE! But let’s ignore for the moment that Democrats understand less than nothing about economics. Because then we get to her suggesting we suspend elections. Yes, let’s just ignore the Constitution. It’s not like it’s the Supreme Law of the Land that can only be ignored under martial law and only changed by approval of three-quarters of the states. The slippery slope here is so obvious it almost doesn’t need to be expressed…if you do that how long before Congress just declares their jobs life time appointments? How long before the president does that? How long before this is no longer a Republic? No, apparently according to the chief executive in North Carolina the Constitution is much like “the Code” in Pirates of the Caribbean, “They’re more of guidelines.” Damn what the longer term consequences of such an action would be. I don’t know if North Carolina has the right of recall for a governor, but if it doesn’t, I suggest that the people of North Carolina take a page from Perdue’s book and just imagine up such a clause, it’s only a guideline after all, and get this idiot out.
On the same day you have two different Democrats, both with access to a pulpit, publically advocating that we should just ignore the Constitution. That’s because it’s a hindrance to their progressive view of how the government should control the economy, thus it should be ignored. That’s because the people elected a much more economically conservative bunch of Congressmen who are doing exactly what they were elected to do and holding the line. That the Constitution should be ignored because the will of the people doesn’t know best, nor do the representatives those people selected. No, it is only the select few, the ones who want to “fix” the economy with more stimulus, with a jobs bill, with control and taxes and regulation, it’s only this select few who know best and as the Constitution is in the way of that it should be ignored. No, we have a leader who will lead a defense corps of union members (Hoffa said they were an army) against all our political enemies in a lightning fast war. (Feel free to translate that last sentence into German).
If Obama has even a single synapse that fires correctly he really needs to call the troops in and scream at them to stop sounding like they’re advocating a banana republic coup, because if nothing else, if this rhetoric continues you can bet that every major political commentator will start hammering them over to the point where it will not only be a defeat of the Democrats in 2012 but instead a crushing defeat that will leave the GOP in total control of both houses and the White House with not just a win but a mandate. Then again if they want to be suicidal I have no problem with that outcome.