There's a BIG difference between Democrats and Republicans!

Sure, both the Democrats and the Republicans have shown (by their actions, not their words) that they have little interest in the constitutional limits on federal power, but there is a significant difference between the parties.

Democrats want to exercise unlimited, coercive federal power in favor of Democratic spending priorities with the aim of maintaining and advancing Democratic power and privilege, while Republicans want to exercise unlimited, coercive federal power in favor of GOP spending priorities with the aim of maintaining and advancing Democratic power and privilege.  Hope that clears things up.

Is it any wonder that TEA partiers and other constitutionalists annoy the heck out of the Republicans as well as the Democrats?  Dems like to claim that the TEA party movement (of which I am a sympathizer, but not a participant) is a GOP conspiracy, but the reality is that the Republican Party can't get rid of the TEA partiers quickly enough.

Observations on politics, culture, and life in general (#1)

(This is the first of what I hope will be an ongoing, occasional series)

#1: However noble its origins, and however admirable its original cause, in time a political party becomes concerned with little more than accumulating and retaining political power.

The Founders of our country had leaders like George Washington in mind when they crafted the Constitution – men of virtue, uninterested in exercising power for one’s personal benefit or for the benefit of those one identified with. 

When Washington left office, America was at a dangerous crossroad.  What kind of men would follow him?  The Founders had done what they could to disperse power as much as possible among the branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments, but this new form of government was vulnerable to those who would abuse it.

In his Farewell Address, Washington warned the nation that our experiment with republican government wouldn’t survive long unless (1) we the people remained virtuous, and (2) we insisted that our leaders be virtuous as well.

Along with this general warning, Washington also warned specifically about the “spirit of party” – the natural tendency of the electorate to organize into political parties or movements.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

As I acknowledged in the Observation, political parties often have noble and admirable beginnings.  But just as government itself naturally draws those who seek power for the benefit of themselves and their ideologies, such also is the eventual destiny of political movements that attract enough voters to make a difference in elections.  

In the one case, the politician will say or do whatever he deems necessary to retain his power and privilege.  In the other case, a political party will eventually take (or promise to take) whatever stands are necessary to increase its power and influence in elected government.

All of this to say: Political parties are in many ways necessary as a means to provide a collective voice to those whose voice would otherwise not be heard.  But, we must always be careful to be true to our own beliefs and values, and never invest our identity in any particular movement – because history shows that it’s just a matter of time before that movement betrays its founding ideals.

We’ve seen that with the two major parties.  If the TEA party movement remains viable in the long term, I have no doubt that it will eventually do so as well.  Such is the fallen nature of mankind.

John Adams: Nip it in the bud!

John Adams, like Barney Fife, saw but one rational response to approaching dangers: nip it in the bud.  Writing to the residents of Massachusetts in 1775, he (Adams, not Fife) had this to say about Britain’s “long train of abuses and usurpations”:

Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards.

Obsta principiis – Resist the beginnings.

Unfortunately, arbitrary power has grown far beyond the shoots.  For too long, the American people have given way, to the point where virtually all resistance ceased for many decades.

Groups like the TEA party movement represent an attempt to take a metaphorical machete to the tangled jungle of unconstitutional government.  It may be too late, but let history record that someone recognized the peril and at least tried to reverse it.

Is there a difference between earmarks at the federal level and at the state level?

In a May 15 article, The Daily Caller (TDC) seems to be trying to whip up some controversy regarding possible GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s apparent inconsistency on the earmarks issue.

Given that Bachmann is a TEA party favorite, this is a serious charge.  TDC notes that she has secured nearly $4 million in earmarks for her district since she was first elected to Congress in 2007.  She also argued to exclude transportation projects from a GOP-championed earmarks moratorium.

These facts are enough to raise eyebrows among TEA partiers and constitutionalists.  I’d like to know how she defends these actions.  Do they undermine the credibility of her TEA Party Caucus on Capitol Hill?

While the answers to these questions are important, TDC raises another issue that got under my skin:

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14? and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Doug Sachtleben, Bachmann’s communications director, sought to explain the earmarks, arguing that voters resent “taking money from taxpayers in one state to pay for a host of wasteful projects in other states.” He added that voters “also expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” These are not absurd arguments — bridges have to get built somehow — but Tea Party activists may find the argument that earmarks are fine at the state level as appealing as Mitt Romney’s argument that individual health care mandates are fine so long as they are enacted at the state level.

When it comes to government, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity – namely, that any activity that ought to be taken on by government should be taken on by the lowest level of government that can get the job done. 

Road and bridge construction is most certainly not in the constitutional domain of the federal government.  So, what about the other levels? 

Some necessary infrastructure is within the financial means of municipal and county governments.  But the reality is that major projects – highway interchanges, bridges, etc. – can quickly wipe out the treasuries of smaller cities and towns (and the counties containing them).  The money has to come from a higher level.

But think about this: What is a county?  It is an administrative subdivision of… the state government!  Counties are entities created by the state enabling it to govern regions more efficiently.  Likewise, cities are state-created entities.  So, it could be argued that spending at the city, county or state level could all be considered state spending.

This fact – and the principle of subsidiarity – are what make the final sentence in the above excerpt so nonsensical.  Are there TEA partiers who think that the state should not fund highway projects (whether at the request of a local representative or not)?  If there are any, I’d like to hear the logic behind such a position.  I suspect, though, that the author’s “Tea Party activists” are made of straw.

One final thought on the excerpt’s final sentence: There is no equivalence between state funding of transportation infrastructure (a legitimate government concern) and state funding of health care (not a legitimate government concern).

Rasmussen's useless throw-the-bums-out poll

I usually find Rasmussen's political polls to be useful, but the one released today really provides no helpful information regarding the mood of the electorate.  One of the poll questions asked:

Suppose you could vote this fall on whether to get rid of the entire Congress and start over again. Would you vote to keep the entire Congress or get rid of the entire Congress?

No middle ground -- throw them all out or keep all of them?  If these were our only choices, I suppose I'd have to say throw them all out and start over.  Unsurprisingly, 65% of the pitchfork-wielding voters went this way as well, because few in their right mind think that keeping the entire Congress is a good idea.

Here in the real world, it's clear that there are some good guys in Congress who should be returned to office.

What was Rasmussen's point in asking this question?

Far more useful were these questions from the same poll:

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party?

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party?

Do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party Movement? [those who answered "no" or "Not sure" were asked] Do you have any close friends or family members who are part of the Tea Party movement?

It's definitely newsworthy to note that (despite what the Democrat and media elite have said repeatedly) only 56% of people who identify with the TEA Party movement (and only 61% of self-identified Republicans) have a favorable view of the Republican Party.

This fact should have been the headline, because the GOP leadership really, really needs to understand this.

Memo to GOP: The national debt wouldn't be where it is now without your active participation

I sure do hope the GOP bigwigs understand the sentiment that appears to be set to thrust their party back into power.  If they think this is just a matter of letting a different party preside over the sinking of our country, their base will withdraw its support with extreme prejudice.
CNSNews, October 14:

The national debt increased for the 53rd straight fiscal year, jumping $1.65 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to data posted online by the Bureau of the Public Debt and confirmed by a spokesperson for the agency.

Fiscal Year 1958, the first year of the run, saw a debt increase of $5.8 billion, a paltry sum these days.  Since then, the cumulative debt increase has been $13.3 trillion.
Although the GOP has been complicit in this drunken-sailor spending binge, the events of the past two years have shown that the Democrats are ideologically devoted to spending without restraint. 
The GOP needs to understand that many of the people who will be voting for them this time will be doing so as the most efficient means of stopping the runaway Democrat train, and not necessarily because they trust the Republicans.
GOP, you'll have two years to earn the trust of these folks.  That's not long, so you'd better not dawdle.