The Roots Of The Establishment’s Power

The roots of the modern American Establishment’s power lies primary in the naivete of the American people. Consider this sign.

Here is the story behind the sign.

The sign “The Buck Stops Here” that was on President Truman’s desk in his White House office was made in the Federal Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. Fred M. Canfil, then United States Marshal for the Western District of Missouri and a friend of Mr. Truman, saw a similar sign while visiting the Reformatory and asked the Warden if a sign like it could be made for President Truman. The sign was made and mailed to the President on October 2, 1945. (continued here)

Truman fashioned himself as a leader willing to make the tough decisions, and that is a good thing. However, as good citizens, we also have the responsibility to not to pass the buck. Yet when they make their ridiculous promises, passing the buck is what conniving politicians ask us to do.

Where do the roots of the welfare state and our massive entitlement programs lie? These programs rest upon our unwillingness to assume personal responsibility for charity. Remember The Parable of the Good Samaritan? Did Jesus define love of neighbor as a government program or as a personal responsibility?

When one of us needs help, what will our leaders in Washington D.C. know of our plight? When you walk down the sidewalk, and you see someone collapsed on the street, will it do any good to wait for President Barack Obama to do something? When your neighbor needs you, won’t you do something? Let’s hope so. Nonetheless, in our naivete, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars stealing money from taxpayers so politicians can redistribute that money to their voting constituencies.

At our nation’s founding, the American People were not so naive.  They understood that man is an inherently sinful creature. Even today, most remain familiar with this quote.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. — Lord Acton in 1887 (from here)

The sentiment expressed in that quote goes back much farther than 1887. In fact, Lord Acton’s quote is often attributed to William Pitt who said this in 1770.

Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.  (from here)

Like their British cousins, the Americans of 1770 were students of the King James Version of the Bible. The Americans of 1770 understood that “there is none good but one, that is, God” (Matthew 19:17).

Therefore, to avoid tyranny, 18th Century Americans took a Conservative approach to government. They passed laws, the Constitution being a prime example, which defined the powers of government. That is, they wrote the Law to say what the government can do. If the Law did not authorize the government to do a particular thing, they did not allow their government to do that particular thing. At the same time, 18th Century Americans limited the government’s control over the individual. If the Law did not specifically prohibit an individual from doing a particular thing, then they thought that individual had the right to do that particular thing. In this way, 18th Century Americans empowered the individual and disempowered their government.

So why have we with the passage of time become so naive? There is this unfortunate thing about American Capitalism. Although Capitalism gives us a wonderful opportunity to use of the fruit of our labors as we wish (that is, to exercise the Right to Pursue Happiness), no system created by man is without flaws. And the flaw of American Capitalism is that it has bred the best of this world’s salesmen.

Within the context of a competitive market place, we want good salesmen. To ensure repeat business, any good salesman knows he must work to keep his customers happy. Otherwise, that salesman risks losing customers to more ethical competitors. However, when citizens become naive about human nature and the function of government, the profession of politics provides an excellent opportunity for unethical salesmen. The profession of politics rewards those who cunningly lie.

When the electorate becomes naive, unethical politicians succeed by making unethical promises. Why?

• Winning only that first election is critical. Once elected unethical politicians use all the resources of the public treasury to win future elections by buying the support of organized political constituencies. Politics is the one profession where it is perfectly legal to accept bribes.
• Negative campaigns work. Unethical politicians do not run on their records; they destroy their opponent’s reputations by distorting their records.  The military calls this sort of thing information warfare.
• To defend their access to government funds, organized political constituencies support the election of corrupt leaders.
• Because of the secularization of our government-run education system, the average citizen does not believe man is inherently evil and readily subject to temptation. Thus, when a politician asks for greater power and the trust he needs to fulfill his campaign promises, the public is too easily tempted by those promises.
• Because the average citizen was educated about government by a Socialist education system, Socialism sounds reasonable to much of the electorate.
• Much of the electorate, dependent on government handouts, fears change. That’s why many refer to Social Security, for example, as the third rail of politics. Yet this costly program, already robbed by previous generations, threatens to bankrupt the nation.
• Most of the public is too busy running their own affairs to investigate the lies politicians tell them.

In the preceding, did I tell you anything you did not already know? Perhaps. Nonetheless, that was not my objective. What I hope to do is to get you to reconsider the candidates defending the status quo. Because the status quo is corrupt, we must elect people willing to suffer the persecution of liars, people dedicated to returning our nation back to its origins as a Constitutional Republic.

In the next and last installment of this series, we will discuss what we can do to reform The Establishment.

Defining “The Establishment”

The definition of the term “establishment” is easy enough.

Establishment

3. the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a governing body and who administer something; “he claims that the present administration is corrupt”; “the governance of an association is responsible to its members”; “he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment”

Therefore, when we speak of The Establishment, we sort of know what we are talking about. So what is the problem? The definition does not address why or who.

• Why does The Establishment exist? To be a part of some group, we must share a common interest. Without that shared interest, we have little motivation to work with the members of that group. In fact, if we are ambitious, we will almost certainly have objectives that put us at crossed purposes with other group members. Therefore, that shared interest must be dominant.
• How do we decide who is part of The Establishment? By definition, a member of The Establishment is part of the governing body. That is, Establishment members have significant power, but power only satisfies a prerequisite. To be a member of America’s large and amorphous Establishment, members must exercise their power on behalf of The Establishment.

So what is the primary aim of The Establishment? In What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means, Dan McLaughlin explains his theory.

The answer is a simple one: it’s almost entirely about spending. The current trajectory of American government spending is one in which spending by government in general, and by the federal government in particular, just keeps on growing as a share of the economy, further and further crowding out the space occupied by free private citizens and businesses in the private sector. Worse, much of this happens automatically, without the consent of the governed in any but the most perfunctory way: discretionary spending is designed to grow because budgets are set by using the prior year’s spending as a baseline, and entitlement and public employee benefit spending – which consume a far larger share of spending – grows by itself in the absence of any affirmative legislation to stop it. (from here)

Rush Limbaugh concurs.

What is, who is (and don’t give me a name) the Republican establishment? What is it about them that makes them the establishment? (interruption) They run Republican thought in…? No. It’s far more specific than that. The Republican establishment wants spending. They want active government; they want to be in charge of it. They’ll tinker with it on the margins, but they want to be inside the entire power structure. They don’t want to be at odds with the power structure in New York, in Washington, in the whole Northeastern Corridor. They want to be part of it, and they’re happy being a minority part of it as long as they’re close to power. As long as they have the respect of the people who run the overall large government. (from here)

Does government spending define The Establishment? I think the answer to that question is both yes and no. Yes, The Establishment does oppose controls on reckless spending. No, it is not just about spending. What The Establishment wants is power. Control over government spending just one aspect of what it means to exercise power.

Consider why The Establishment defends the status quo. Because they gained and now retain power within the existing state of things, the status quo, The Establishment  — the people who govern our nation — tend to oppose any changes which would reduce their power.

When a People understands the weaknesses of their leaders, they hand power over to them with great reluctance, demanding proof of the need. Moreover, they require that those they entrust with public office serve honorably. When a People becomes naive about human nature and how their government functions, the People put rascals in charge. These rascals become and then corrupt The Establishment. Under the leadership of rascals, government no longer serves to protect the Rights of the People. As members of The Establishment, rascals do not seek the public good. As that gang we call The Establishment, rascals seek personal power and personal prerogatives.

Thus, we have the current situation. Even though government spending is now wildly out of control, The Establishment still opposes any changes which might allow us to bring spending under control.

With rascals in charge, these characteristics define The Establishment.

• Establishment leaders define and execute the official duties principally by exercising “control” over prolific government spending such as welfare and entitlement programs. Our nation’s Founders created the Federal Government to protect our Rights, and they envisioned the Federal Government as a means of national defense, a tool for cooperation between state governments. The Founders did not anticipate a national welfare state or massive entitlement programs. Nonetheless, such programs now absorb most of our nation’s spending
• Establishment leaders oppose or table any changes in Law which would effectively reduce the growth of government spending and power.
• Establishment leaders define progress as growing government.
• When confronted with a “problem”, Establishment leaders propose new government programs and increased government power as their preferred solution.

Note something important. In many respects, the Republican Establishment and the Democratic Establishment is one and the same. The difference appears to be this. Whereas much the Republican Party either opposes or is relatively satisfied with status quo, members of the Democratic Party openly seek to increase their power.

So why do we focus on spending? Government spending is visible and relatively easy to quantify. That’s why exploding deficits engendered the Tea Party movement, but we must study the problem further. We must understand what makes The Establishment so irrational. The Establishment does not fight just to spend our money. The Establishment strives for ever greater power. We fight pride-filled men and women who would play as gods with our souls. As smug, self-righteous, pompous busybodies, they would dominate and rule over every moment of every day of our lives.

So what is next? In Part 2, we will examine the roots of The Establishment’s power.

With respect to the subject of Islam, I suppose some will find Boudica BPI Weblog a bit hysterical. Nonetheless, even though Islam has only one undeniable virtue, some how some way Islam has spread. Thus, much of the world suffers under a code of honor that demands rigid and too often irrational order.

Yet as persistent as Islamists may be, Islam can be halted and turned back by determine defenders. In fact, determination is the key ingredient in defending against any kind of tyranny.

Via Hudson Valley Patriots

Complacent Conservatism Is Allowing America To Slide Into The Abyss

John Hawkins writes: Conservatism is more relevant than ever to American life, but much of the conservative movement has grown complacent, lazy, rigid, and out-of-touch. Too many conservatives went to D.C. to make a difference and hung around to make a few bucks. Too many conservatives have given up on moving America to the right and are now content to just hold the line so we don’t move any further backwards. That’s one of the dirty little secrets on the Right; real grassroots Tea Party conservatism FRIGHTENS a lot of conservatives, especially the ones in D.C. It’s not so much because they disagree with the sentiment, but because they’ve become so demoralized that they instinctively recoil from any meaningful effort to move the country to the right, rather than just stopping the movement to the left. (continued here)

H/T Boudica BPI Weblog. See Walter Reed Hospital Bible Ban! WTF? And yes, I know boudicabpi uses some crude language. This is one of those times I don’t think it is that important.

In this post, HOW THE LOGIC OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION LEADS TO THE SACRIFICE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, we discussed the DC Court of Appeals’ decision on Obamacare. When Eric the 1/2 Troll commented (here, here, and here), he indicated his disagreement with the post. When I suggested private charity would work better than Obamacare, Eric responded by repeatedly asking some form of the same question.

“You really want to help the uninsured? There is no substitute for honest charity. That involves reaching into your own pocket.”

Tom, and what happens when no charity steps up to help the uninsured heart attack victim who needs triple by-pass surgery or he dies? Are you prepared to let him die (as a matter of policy) so as to preserve your ideal that gov’t has no role in charity? (from here)

When I explained Obamacare would just make things worse for everyone, Eric did not respond to my arguments. He could not get beyond repeating the same question. Why? Well, I think Eric is too focused on the problem to seriously consider whether the proposed solution, Obamacare, will work.

What happens we ”think” emotionally? What if we are afraid or worried? Will we  give the solution to a problem that frightens or worries us enough thought?  Some people will not. Want an example? You see a child drowning. What do you do? Well, here is an example of what someone did, Girl, 9, rescuer drown in Plymouth.

A 9-year-old girl and a 26-year-old man died Monday night after the man jumped into a pool at a Plymouth apartment complex to try to save the girl from drowning. (from here)

Like as not, the guy forgot he could not swim, and that is not uncommon. In fact it happens enough that the problem has actually received some research, Drowning for Love. The Aquatic-Victim-Instead-of-Rescuer (AVIR) Syndrome: Drowning fatalities involving those attempting to rescue a child. Here is the introduction.

Non-intentional child drowning remains a leading cause of child mortality. A related and secondary syndrome is composed of those who drown in impulsive, altruistic attempts to go to the aid of a drowning child. Such ‘rescuers’ who attempt to save a drowning child may themselves drown, a tragic event we term the AVIR syndrome or aquatic victim-instead-of-rescuer.

The article suggests it might help to teach potential rescuers how to conduct such a rescue without inordinate risk to their own lives (The rescuer who drowns provides an “oral” presentation.). So some experts do provide instruction. For example, How To Rescue a Drowning Victim provides recommendations for conducting a rescue. Note that these suggestions are not particularly remarkable. Here is how How To Rescue a Drowning Victim begins.

Drowning victims are probably the most dangerous to try to rescue. In a panic, drowning victims are likely to claw at rescuers and climb to the surface at all costs. NEVER attempt a direct rescue of a conscious drowning victim without proper training.

Remember always: REACH, THROW, but only GO with training and equipment.

Even if you know how to swim well, it is not a good idea to get into the water with a drowning victim. Unfortunately, in a highly emotional, emergency situation, we don’t always stop to think. We take the most direct approach. We head straight for the victim. Without thinking, we risk being pulled under by the person we are trying to rescue.

Unfortunately, the corporate news media does not encourage calm and thoughtful responses to national problems. Instead, journalists urge us to dwell on the health care “crisis”, magnifying the problem and our emotional response. We empathize with the health care problems of the poor, the aged, and those who have exhausted their insurance. We imagine ourselves in the same dilemma. Then we listen with relief and rapt attention to the promises of scheming politicians.

When our leaders boldly promise to solve the problem of health care – to make health care a “right” — we want to believe them. When they offer Obamacare as the most direct approach to fixing our health care system, many cheered the “solution”.

Instead of cheering we first need examine the solution carefully. Because politicians are just people, we must consider whether their proposals will work. Will Obamacare fix the problem or make the situation worse? Has Eric considered that question? If we have good reason to believe Obamacare will worsen our health care problems, further damage our economy, and continue the unraveling of our Constitution, then the question Eric did ask is a non sequitur.