Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Whose Side Are You On, Boys?

It seems the Democrats in Congress have decided that Obama's decision that he needs no Congressional authority for his agenda is quite all right with them. In light of this, Sara Noble has proposed a revision of the oath of office taken by Democrats elected to Congress:

The Original

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Rewrite

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Democrat Party against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will inappropriately and with complete partisanship scorn the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me Obama.

It's perfectly clear whose side they're on.

But there's worse: the Republicans in the House of Representatives, despite the majority they hold in that body, have announced that "there's nothing we can do about it." The reason? "We don't want to be blamed for another government shutdown."

That's right. The men we sent to Washington specifically to oppose the anti-Constitutional schemes of the Obamunists have gone limp on us. They're afraid of adverse Main Stream Media coverage should they exercise the powers the Constitution grants them. They're afraid they'll lose their seats if they dare to take a stance in defense of the Constitution of the United States.

But wait: there's more! The Republican "leadership" senses another threat as well: the rise of the conservatively-oriented TEA Party and the officials and candidates it backs. Beleaguered from left and right, the GOP's kingmakers have decided...to do nothing at all.

Well, perhaps not absolutely nothing. With that solid majority in the House, the Republicans, exercised to the heavens over IRS abuses, really ought to have empaneled a special commission to investigate that most feared of all the alphabet agencies, shouldn't they? Or, given the threat from the right represented by the TEA Party, might the party's leadership have decided that those abuses aren't so abusive after all? Hearken to former Democrat Party strategist Pat Caddell:

Several major figures in the Republican Party will shortly face TEA Party-backed challengers in their primary elections. When one considers how utterly unwilling to stand on Republican principles McConnell, Boehner, and others have been, Caddell's deduction that the GOP's leadership secretly approves of the IRS's machinations to silence TEA Party groups becomes unpleasantly plausible.

Whose side are they on?


The United States inherited its conception of representative government from the English Parliamentary system. The colonial rebels had no objection to such a scheme; they merely felt that the Parliament on the other side of the Atlantic did not and could not represent them. That sentiment was embodied in the Revolutionary slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!"

But representative government is more than just a form. The moral validity of representative government rests on the premise that the representatives can be relied upon:

  • To represent their constituencies as they said they would when they were raised to office;
  • To remain faithful to their Constitutionally defined duties and their oaths of office.

Both halves of that premise have been invalidated by the utter betrayal of the Democrats and the spinelessness of the Republicans. Private Americans of today are as unrepresented as were the colonists in the years of King George III.

But the men who saunter through Washington's halls of power do represent someone...or perhaps something. They represent the ruling class, a pseudo-nobility that every year becomes more disdainful of the rights of common men and better insulated against removal by electoral means.

They represent themselves and their continuity in power.

In a way, this is worse than the Soviet Politburo. That body was an open oligarchy. Its members served for life or until retirement. The Politburo selected new members without consultation with the Soviet people. Though the General Secretary of the Communist Party and the Premier of the USSR were supposedly elected, there was never more than one choice on the "ballot" for either post -- and woe betide the Soviet subject who openly voted Nyet! on either candidate.

Gerrymandering, party kingmakers capable of dictating who will be allowed to contest for a seat, subtle measures of sub rosa dissuasion, and open vote fraud and voter intimidation have created a state of affairs in which a sitting legislator who stands for re-election has a 95% chance of returning to his seat. The remaining 5%, however animated, can do little against that mass of veterans, sealed into power by seniority rules and a well-cultivated ability to garner special-interest support through judiciously awarded privileges, subsidies, and subventions. More, in the preservation of their status and perquisites, the veterans enjoy cross-aisle support.

We no longer have a "two-party system." We're down to one party:

The Incumbent Party

Whose side is it on? Why, its own, of course -- and it will brook no opposition to its agenda.

Go ahead and vote, if it makes you feel better. It won't have any other effect.

1 comment:

Linda said...

Wonder to what extent this has been exacerbated by this:

http://rau.3littlefoxes.com/?p=635