Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Drawing The Line
This one will be in my natural voice. It's too serious, and too personal, to give over to the Curmudgeon. I've been thinking it over this entire day, and as grim as my conclusions are, I can't back away from them.
The news of the day is, of course, all about the "stimulus" bill -- what my Esteemed Co-Conspirator the Unknown Glitch calls Porkulus Maximus. It's a complete horror, a plunge into ultra-deficit financing for statist wet dreams, an extravagance of a magnitude no previous administration, no matter how profligately inclined, would have dared to broach to the electorate. And it has nothing to do with "reviving the economy."
America got to its current state because of permanent government deficit finance, government debasement of the dollar, government redistribution, and government meddling in the economy, most particularly the credit market. Not one of these things was contemplated by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Washington proceeded with them anyway. Not one economist of any standing would disagree that our troubles are rooted in the very policy arrogances I just enumerated. But politicians, to whom government is the one and only "solution" to any and every "problem," have proposed that we address our difficulties by intensifying the very practices that produced them.
Not even its sponsors sincerely believe that Porkulus Maximus will do anything to resuscitate our markets. If you need confirmation, simply recall how stridently the Democrats, when they were in opposition, lambasted Congressional Republicans -- justifiably -- for their profligate spending. That's what we in the commentary trade call a dead giveaway.
We're standing at the lip of a crater labeled "socialism." Porkulus is the Democrats' attempt to shove us in.
Chuck Norris had a typically straightforward and optimistic column at TownHall this morning. I felt tears rising all the way through it, and at this sentence:
"As for that clueless Congress, we must demand our representatives seek a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, which will keep the government living within its means.”
...they broke free.
Never imagine that career politicians can't weasel their way around a barrier made of mere words. Postulate, despite the implausibility of it, that a balanced-budget amendment can and will be enacted. Is it credible that it would contain no escape clause for "war or national emergency?" And is it imaginable that Congress would refuse itself the privilege of defining what constitutes a national emergency?
If you doubt my assessment of the implausibility of such an amendment, however cleverly worded, consider how the Obama Administration and the Democrat majorities in Congress are edging toward the suppression of dissent:
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."...
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff....
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
[Link courtesy of Mike Hendrix's invaluable Cold Fury.]
No doubt the lefties on the Web, the Wolcotts, Chaits, Altermans and their ilk, trust that their ideological friends in high places would leave them unfettered. But even such as they possess some freedom-related value to be protected -- I know it's hard to believe -- and a government bent on taking control of the last conduit of truly free expression would countenance no loci of potential opposition to that agenda, even from the nominally friendly. Leftist commentators would be safe only as long as they kept within the sphere approved by their masters -- and they would be watched far more closely than they imagine.
There is only one way out of our morass, and it doesn't involve elections, highly unlikely Constitutional amendments, or bitching to one another on the Internet. The people of the United States must return to their original role as the defenders of their own rights and freedoms -- the enforcers of the constraints on government expressed by the Constitution. That could mean:
- Noncompliance with federal edicts for which there's no Constitutional authorization;
- Refusal to pay federal taxes so long as the federal government exercises unConstitutional powers;
- The formation of alternative economies that use hard money rather than federal fiat currency;
- Local and state militias dedicated to the defense of their communities and the businesses in them against intrusion by federal forces;
- And if all else fails, the imposition of Vince Flynn's conception of a "hard term limit" on legislators, executives, and judges who arrogate the privilege of ignoring the Constitution, or rewriting it to suit their own purposes.
The Founders most certainly did contemplate this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Anything else would require an unjustified, historically unfounded degree of faith in professional politicians, in political parties and the processes they control, and in the elections those parties dominate: the very institutions and mechanisms that have led us to this sorry pass.
Don't think I'm not aware of the potential price such resistance to Leviathan could impose. I know it quite well. But I've lived too long in freedom to submit to tyranny. If it were only I who felt this strongly, the cause would be doomed. But the indications are otherwise. If enough Americans feel the same, no power on Earth could restrain us.
Where do you draw the line, Gentle Reader? The one over which, should Leviathan step, you'd rear up on your hind legs and compel -- not "demand," compel -- an accounting, regardless of the cost?
"Paper constitutions raise smiles on the faces of those who have observed their results." -- Herbert Spencer.
"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
