Tipping Point - A majority faction has gone too far

The events of the last couple months ought to give us pause. We have leaders that demand that members of Congress vote on a bill before they can read it, they freely admit they make the rules up in the House as they go along, they believe they can "deem" a bill passed, they believe an executive order can change current federal law, they do all this with no regard for the minority party in the Congress or the majority of the people in the country.

There are those within the democratic party that claimed that life was sacred at the moment of conception and that no federal funds should be used to fund abortion, and yet they vote for the bill. The lie is exposed. There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat. There is no such thing as a democrat with principles. Anything that furthers the power and influence of themselves and their party is a worthy endeavor.

We have a new massive program added, with only half of it paid for with higher taxes the rest on fictional Medicare cuts. As history has taught us, it will likely cost much much more. As basic social science teaches us, it will not lower premiums, will not improve care, and won't lower the deficit.

Democrats are far more than simply too far left for the country, they have intentionally ignored the U.S. Constitution. President Obama, Pelosi, and Reid care very little for this country, the apologize for it throughout the world, they criticize its people, its businesses, its habits, and even the manner in which they talk about public issues. And what disgusts me is that the University of Chicago paid Barack Hussein Obama to teach Constitutional Law to law students. And conservatives are just paranoid of liberal universities and faculty? Hardly. Obama's regard for the Constitution is just above the scribbles on a notepad. But what makes it more clear, is that: if the United States was such a great country, and the Constitution such a perfect political charter, why has such transformational changes, ground-shaking reforms, and outright defiance of the Constitution been required for what is a PUBLIC SUBSIDY!

We are not talking about an existential threat to the country, it is not slavery, it is not war, it is not political oppression or tyranny. We are not talking about women's suffrage, conscription, Prohibition, or social security. We are talking about paying for 31 million people to get Health Insurance. Not healthcare, health insurance. We are mandating that Americans buy health insurance, whether they like it or not. It is a taking. It is a perversion of the Commerce Clause authority. It stretches the hand of the central government farther than it has ever been stretched before. Every one of our Founding Fathers would be outraged by the events of the last couple months. They would be standing outside the Capitol Building with actual pitch forks, ready to tar and feather Pelosi, Hoyer, or Stupak.

And yet they applaud inside. They know these things, they are not stupid. They just don't care. The Constitution is a dusty old document with only marginal relevance. Power, control, and dependence is what they want. It has been done numerous times in the world. the fact that there is no Gestapo does not make it any less true. No tyrant freely admits he intends to oppress the people before he does so.

You want proof of their lack of care, look at the poor African American communities in Chicago, Detroit, or Philadelphia. For decades, they have been run by liberal democrats cut from the same cloth as Obama and Pelosi. And today, they are poor, in some cases poorer, they still live in what we call ghettos, and they still march and demand this and that from an unfair country. Socialism does not work. The democratic model does not work. We know this and we have known this for a while. But we just feel so damn cruel and guilty for not supporting these wasteful, ineffective, and ambitious social programs.

Well, read Federalist #10. The majority faction has been more than happy to overrun the minority here in order to get their way. They care little for process or rules. They expand their power and authority over all at the expense of all. But as long as you are within their dependent patronage armies, you will get taken care of. As the country slowly descends into economic ruin as did Argentina, Japan, and others have before us, we will all slowly become more miserable, hopeless, and weak.

That is our future under this President and this Congress. Unless they are defeated and their efforts repealed, our country will see its fall in 5-10 years rather than a few decades.

What is Leadership according to Taoism?

The very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist.
Those next best are beloved and praised.
The lesser are feared and despised.
Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief,
it is from high value placed on words.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

Why does government exist at all? Because men are not saints and therefore order must be established and maintained. Harmony cannot exist on its own where men are not saints. Without harmony there is no freedom, no prosperity, and no justice. When government is established how do we judge its greatness and effectiveness?

The Tao teaches that the greatest leaders are only known to exist. How could this possibly be??? In America, we are always learning in the news what our President is doing, what his positions are, how he proposes to change things, to make things better. If we don't, people ask "what is he doing?", "why isn't he doing something about this, or about that?", "he must be weak, incompetent, or simply does not care about the problems that plague society". And so we seek government where the President is beloved and praised. Everyday we take polls to learn how people feel about our President and what the think of the job he is doing. Everyday the President and his advisors take note of these polls as does everyone else serving in public office or in the bureaucracy. We gauge success or failure by use of approval ratings. It is because we place an overly high value on words.

What if the President did not have daily press briefings? What if he did not take interviews? What if the only speech you heard was the State of the Union? In the early days of the American republic, most people never heard the voice of the President, received publications of his speeches and words very rarely, in fact it was not known to the people what the President was doing unless he was declaring war, peace, signing a major piece of legislation, or nominating someone to a post. Otherwise it probably didn't matter. Was there anarchy? Were those Presidents irresponsible? Those Presidents were Washington thru FDR. FDR became the first to engage the people on a weekly basis, the first to be on television, and the first to be a constant in the lives of the people.

Taoism would caution modern society on its constant demands on the President, both in words and action. It would also caution our obsession and high value on words. So the question is do we buy this?

Imagine a society where the people do not really hear daily about their President or their Congress. They know who they are and periodically what they do but for the most part they only "know them to exist". How is this possible? First, the people would have to live where the actions of the federal government seldom affect their lives. Second, when there is cause for complaint, the people do not see the federal government as providing the solution. Perhaps a local magistrate or some private action would provide a more expedient resolution, whatever the case they don't look to central government. Third, the people are living peacefully and prosperously and see no problems requiring government interference. There will always be problems or issues, but no great injustice, no war, no violence, or no poverty that demands large scale action.

Today, liberals and many moderates do not see this kind of world. The federal government must serve an important role in the daily lives of the people. They are taught that are major problems with this country that require solutions. Things are wrong. There is poverty, social injustice, racial injustice, legal inequality, inadequate social services, global warming, and there are people out there that will take advantage of you if no one stops them. They are next taught that these are big and complicated problems that require big and complicated solutions that only the federal government can provide.

Conservatives have different beliefs. They resent the role the federal government has in their daily lives. They believe there are problems, some big, some small. But many, they believe, are exaggerated. They question the level of alarm that many have on the issues of the day. They are also highly suspicious of the required solutions. They feel they do not warrant big and complicated solutions and certainly do not think the federal government can provide those solutions. They feel the federal government is already in excess and that further action is not desirable in the least.

So how do conservatives convince others? One way is they debate the scale of these problems, which has been marginally effective at best. Most people believe these problems exist and are big. Another way is to argue the federal government cannot solve them. This has been more effective but there is an obvious question: then how do we solve them? Conservatives are not very good at answering this second question. Sure they have answers, but they have proven unpersuasive to others. Often the retort is that there are other ways but its not through the federal government. But people want clear solutions and clear details. They want words, they want something to praise. To them, conservative solutions just don't seem compassionate or "good". Their liberal education leaves them skeptical.

What about the Tea Parties? What you are seeing today is a massive rejection of the big and complicated solutions offered by the federal government. People do not believe it is the solution to these problems, but believe these problems do exist. Is that enough to get us back on track? No its not. Because the people are still looking for leadership and solutions they can praise. We are stuck in the middle rung of governance and need to get out. Until then, the defeat of liberal democrats on today's issues may provide conservatives a victory but it may be short-lived. It won't be long before the people give republicans another chance and if they cannot solve this puzzle, their reign will be short-lived as well.

I don't have a theory on the solution yet but am working on it.

The Commerce Clause: Expansion of Federal Power

The Commerce Clause
Congress shall have the power...to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes...

Up until 1937, this clause was used only in narrow respects, in terms of actual commerce that crossed state lines. It prohibited government intervention in contracts and property rights. FDR changed it with his Court packing and was able to get a more expansive interpretation of this clause. It allowed for more application to civil liberties and other non-commercial subject-matter. It covered minimum wages, labor standards, civil rights, prosecution of sex offenders, and gun control laws. As long as the government could prove some element of the statute involved something that crossed state lines or involved more than one state, the Court got out of its way.

It was not until 1995 in United States v. Lopez that the Supreme Court restores some of the limitations of government power in terms of this clause of the Constitution. However, most of it is still in place. Through this clause the federal government has been able to increase its power beyond its enumerated powers and the original intent of the Constitution.

In civics class, it is taught that the federal government has specific enumerated powers in the Constitution, while the States have plenary powers restricted only by the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution states specifically what the federal government CAN do, but for the states, it states specifically what they CANNOT do. The purpose was to give states greater jurisdiction while limiting the role of the federal government.

Today the federal government has flexibiltiy in extending its authority and the states have been manipulated to where they willingly defer to the central government. Walter Russell Mead provided an interesting take. He argues that the United States changed in the mid-20th century to a new "Blue Model" with large and stable entities in the public, private, and mixed sectors of the economy. These large entities provided lifetime employment and substantial resources to better education and other public services. Costs were expected to go down making these services affordable. It was progressive and was considered an achievement in reconciling capitalism with social and economic security, according to Mead.

As we all know it is going in the opposite direction. Costs are going up and the services offered are seen as inadequate or flawed. Investments in a centralized government bureaucracy often gets chopped up with administrative costs, pensions, and high salaries for public sector workers, which are now all unionized and bargain for these funds. They are interested in self-preservation and power not quality services. We can no longer afford this "Blue Model" and it is failing to provide the services offered.

The power and reach of the federal government is overstretched. It is time the blue model is dismantled and we begin a breaking down in the major oligopolies of public services, devolving it to the states or the private sector. It will also require that the Constitution begin to be applied as if it means what it says. The Commerce Clause must be pulled back. This all began with a stretching of that clause and can be solved by returning to first principles.

It will involve tough choices. These giant entities will have to be reduced in size, cut costs, or be eliminated completely. States must be given more leeway to actually try new policies and ideas rather than being "directed" by federal agencies and statutes to follow a single path. States must also move towards greater independence from the federal government in terms of money and institutional capability.

Conservatives love this idea. Conservatism has a lot to do with going with what got us here, which involves greatly the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the founders. The Commerce Clause and its expansion is a demonstration of the battle between conservatives and liberals. Liberals wanted the blue model, and they still want it. However, we can't afford it and it is provided sub-standard results. Conservatives want to begin working towards a new model, or rather adoption of something that better resembles the pre-1937 system.