Posted on 10/13/2013 6:09:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
It was only a matter of time before the clash of ideologies between Constitutional conservatives and statist progressives manifested itself in a call for a ‘benevolent dictator’ to resolve the differences in authoritarian fashion.
The hyper-educated Chris Hayes of MSNBC echoed such calls, which have occurred under the Obama administration before in various guises. Hayes appeals to “astute” analysts of American politics at The Washington Post, Slate, and New York magazine, and spoke with one of them — Jonathan Chait.
Hayes says that there is a “growing consensus” that the nation’s law of the land is “fatally flawed,” and therefore we should look to European style parliamentary government used by other “democracies” [sic] for guidance on how to run the most powerful and prosperous country in world history (before the progressives got into power, it should be said).
Hayes lauds the European parliamentary system because the executive and legislative functions are controlled “by the same groups of people.” He then condemns the Constitution for checks and balances, which allow “different parts of the government to be controlled by different parties.”
In other words, the U.S. has a government that is based on reasoned deliberation and not naked force; regardless of the empty appeals to paternalistic virtue that allowed fascism to rise in Europe; and regardless of the demagogue’s calls for the centralized control of wealth redistribution that is the model for socialist and communist countries.
Europe’s tortuous history is lesson enough to remind many of the dangers of central control; but the U.S. has been sheltered to an extent from open calls for dictatorships, which nonetheless did occur under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The context of Hayes’ call for control in one party’s hands is unmistakable: he wants the Democrat Party to have the absolute power to disregard the need for compromise.
Nearly a great majority of Americans, for example, believe that the U.S. government should cut spending before raising the debt limit. Hayes would presume the Democrats ignore them, and those voters who gave the Republicans power of the purse, and for the Democrats to do as they pleased.
A professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown by the name of Louis Michael Seidman late last year argued in the pages of the New York Times, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” Thomas Friedman, also of the New York Times, argued for a concept called “China for a day” (as if it would last for a day) when the (communist) government could actually make decisions. The left’s pedigree of authoritarianism is unmistakable: the more radical the policies, the more the upheaval, and the more incessant the calls for authoritarian “solutions” – in the name of “fairness” or what-have-you.
In opposition, conservatives want divided government, because they have read history and distrust authoritarians, who almost always rise to power to promote the “common good.” The popular image of the tea party, for example, spread by opinion-molders is that it is a right-wing extremist movement within the Republican party. But actually, it is a coalition of American conservatives near the center of two extremes. According to widely accepted political theory and European history, leftists are extremists.
“Right-wing” is a slur reflexively hurled by socialists and progressives at any party, movement, faction, or individual that opposes the left-wing agenda. The smear tactic is intended to confuse those who support the traditionally American tenets of liberty, limited government, and individual rights with European fascists and ultra-nationalists.
It is the appreciation of conflicting interests in a free society that led to the innovations of the Constitution; divided powers and checks and balances were designed to safeguard people against abuses by either an absolutist ruler, or a tyrannical majority seeking to despoil its prey of property, life, or freedom. The requirement of legislation by majority, and the stipulation that changing the Constitution demands a super-majority, were but two safeguards. One of the most important barriers to oppression is the Bill of Rights, which lists individual rights not to be violated by tyrants of any variety.
Those who hold that that conservatives are “extremist” have the false conception that virtuous men can lead a “compassionate” government that will give people everything their hearts desire. But they fail miserably to account for the historical track record of consolidated governmental authority, which is always justified by appeal to lofty sentiments. The American government must inevitably disappoint and frustrate progressives, because it is designed to spur men to manage themselves and become productive members of society.
Conservatives do not desire to rule their political opposition or otherwise impose their will on their fellow citizens. Instead, they want to restore the nation to its Constitutional foundations, establish fiscal responsibility in government, reinstate the free market economic principles that allowed the majority of the nation to prosper, and renew the virtue in individuals to see human beings as ends in themselves, and not as means to some political end.
Ultimately, the Constitution, the embodiment of those founding principles that conservatives cherish most, is specifically designed to protect American citizens from political threats arising from both the right and the left. Leftists, on the other hand, are for complete state control of economy, society, and the government, making them absolutists. Americans should protect the Constitution and strive to prevent further abuse of power by the U.S. government.
I’ve heard/read about the Constitution being a flawed document my entire lengthy life yet never hear/read precisely what is flawed. Only that it is.
What is flawed about the Constitution IMO is that it allows Leftists opportunities they should never have.
More like hyper-indebted.
The flaw in the Constitution is it allows Communists, Socialists and Fascists, whom we we know as Democrats, all of which do not want a Constitution. The stake in the heart of a statist is the Constitution.
Yes, our President has much in common with Robespierre and St, Just.
These guys actually have a point.
Our checks and balances style government was set up for a government of limited authority and powers.
It was not designed for a government that would “run the country” and is not compatible with one.
So we can change our system to one that is compatible with “running the country,” something a great many Americans seem to want. Or we can return to a government of limited powers and scope of authority.
What we can’t do is keep limping along with a government trying to run the country with limited power and divided government.
It makes him like Obama, who seems intellectual but is not.
We have seen what happens when States try to secede from the Union, but, can we throw States out of the Union?
Looking forward to sitting on that jury!
"...the natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield...in questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
"Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path to destruction."
Thomas Jefferson (on the free market/private property system they tried to leave us and the incredible wealth they knew it would allow us to produce ‑‑ and what MIGHT happen to us as a result. The familiar vernacular expression today is "Fat, dumb and happy." Have we become fat, dumb and happy? If you want to sleep tonight, don't answer that!)
I prefer the tag Alan Keyes hung on them: INSANE CHILDREN!
I am very surprised the vereans were not shot in front of the Whtie House today. They had guns inside their zipped police jackets, plastic handcuffs at the ready, and snipers on the roof just like the Military had in Egypt when Morsi was thrown out. Only a few more hours or days before the killing gets underway in earnest, in my view. First they shot that lady in her car last week, then the guy burned himself to death on the mall — it will escalate and even if the congress gives Obama everything he wants plus amnesty: people are out of work and out of money - no cash to pay Obamacaretax.
Warren Zevon said it best:
Well, I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians, too
I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this
I’m the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I’m down on my luck
And I’m down on my luck
And I’m down on my luck
Now I’m hiding in Honduras
I’m a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan
Send lawyers, guns and money...
No, I believe that the man who calls himself Obama and his enablers are going to be taking the Ceausescu Challenge whether they like it or not.
Well we already have FASCIM, may as well call for it AFTER the fact.
They will not like it.
But yes, this will end too.
About Ceasescu:
http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_media/ultima-audio.html
Obozo must sense the similarities.
In 2010 when Barry Farber wrote his article about Obama learning from Ceausescu, this was not so clear as it is now.
Why don’t they come out and say what they really think...
...that all parties other than the DemocRat party should be outlawed and that all members or supporters of those parties should be reeducated or, better yet, executed.
>>>We are playing the same game that the English had to lay with their Scottish king, who wanted be “absolute,” which is to say, rule without Parliaments, like the kings of France after Henry IV established a Bourbon dictatorship that would survive until the French Revolution. Chief Justice Coke involved magma carta, an ancient document which each king of England swore to uphold. For James and Charles, the document was hopelessly outdated, and they wanted to establish a “modern” government. Mr. Obama seems to share the same sentiments.<<<
I’ve also thought for a long while that the mirror for today’s troubles is the Glorious Revolution. Their issue was whether or not the king had absolute authority; our issue is whether or not the state has absolute authority. Let’s hope I’m not living in the modern equivalent of Ulster, though.
When I was in Europe, I would discuss politics with the locals. What I found interesting was that their concept of the “Right” was the same as their concept of the “Left”, just with different people in charge of huge government with slightly different purposes and goals. They did not have a concept of limited Government. Thier political spectrum is huge Government across the entire range of Left to Right. They all say they are Centrist, which is huge government that does everything just perfectly. The result is high taxes, no mobile labor in the market, high fuel prices, tiny little cars, tiny cold or hot houses and apartments, and no parking anywhere. The alternatives, buses and trains are expensive too. The malls suck too.
Hayes is a little poseur with a self-aggrandizement and ego to match that would put Obama to shame (if that is possible).
Ignore the putz. He’s about as important as an infected boil on a hippo’s ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.