Think carefully before demanding that the government take up your cause

Image Source

"The average American of today is intellectually so far removed from his forebears
that instead of regarding government with apprehension,
he is more likely to regard it as a virtual parent,

concerned only with protecting him and helping him."

- George Reisman

Human nature being what it is, no government in history has ever been able to live up to the expectations that the current generation of Americans has for our government, and no government is ever likely to.

The government cannot take up your cause without oppressing those who do not embrace that cause.  If you're okay with that, then you are the reason our forebears regarded government with apprehension.  Modern government is full of people like you -- fine with the idea of oppression, as long as the oppressors are your fellow ideological tribespeople.

Stacking the deck: "White Privilege" theory in a nutshell

In a world where everybody plays by the same rules and is judged by the same standards, racism would describe any action or attitude that shows favor for one race over another or displays overt contempt for members of a particular race.  Similarly, sexism would describe any action or attitude that shows favor for one sex over another or displays overt contempt for members of a particular sex¹. 

The "Progressive" Left, however, is not interested in everybody playing by the same rules and being judged by the same standards.  Adherents  have produced out of whole cloth the notion of "White Privilege".  As you can see in the image below, here is how White Privilege theory answers the assertions that anybody can be racist or sexist:

Minorities² cannot be racist and women³ cannot be sexist, because they "do not hold political, economic, and institutional power".

In essence, whites (especially white males) have a stranglehold on political, economic, and institutional power, and whites employ that power to oppress women and ethnic minorities -- even without consciously meaning to.  The oppressors enjoy all of the privileges of being in the oppressor class, and they jealously guard all of the privileges they enjoy.

So you see, if you're white -- especially a white male -- the deck has been stacked against you.  These terms have been subverted to exclude the possibility of any opposing viewpoint.  Suggestion: if you find yourself in a debate with a Progressive over one of these issues, let them know you refuse to engage them until they prove to your satisfaction that White Privilege is an actual thing.

Images via "The Safest Space" on Twitter

Footnotes:
¹ Progressives are pushing hard on the notion of gender fluidity⁴ nowadays, and that would seem to render the whole notion of sexism moot...wouldn't it?  Sexism seems to imply binary gender.

² Many Progressives exclude Asians from the ethnic minority status (witness the active attempts to discriminate against them in California public universities), because for the most part they refuse to act like they're oppressed.

³ White women have the dubious honor of being both oppressor and oppressed, depending on the topic of the moment.

⁴ (Wow, a footnote on a footnote!) Many Progressives define the "oppressor" class as white heterosexual males to allow white sexual minorities to be counted as oppressed in some circumstances.

The Left, the Founders, and the Constitution

Well, of course the left understands the U.S. Constitution better than its authors did.

What happened to C-Pol?

For over a decade, this blog was called "C-POL: Constitutionalist, Conservative Politics". Over time, my deep-thought ponderings have been moving away from the rough-and-tumble of everyday political wrangling and toward the larger philosophical, ideological, and cultural currents of our age.  

I've changed the title of the blog to highlight my conviction that the "fundamental transformation" (to adapt President Obama's phrase) of the United States that's currently underway is, in the long run, bad not only for this country but for the world in general.

Scoff if you must; I'm okay with that.  I aim to make my case as time goes on.  I'm okay with being on the "wrong side of history" if I'm actually right.

Mandatory voting is, quite possibly, one of the worst ideas ever

This week, I was quite surprised to learn from my Facebook newsfeed that quite a few on the left are excited about the notion of mandatory voting for American citizens (at least, I assume they're wanting this just for the citizens).  My gut reaction is that this is, quite possibly, one of the worst ideas ever presented as a solution to the phenomenon of low voter participation.

Before explaining why I believe this, I should note that this erupted into the news this week because our Dear Leader just endorsed the notion.  Yahoo! News, March 18:

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it potentially transformative.

Yes, it would be grand if citizens took seriously their civic responsibility to participate in our democratic institutions.  So, why don't they?  The president's speech encapsulates the reasons that I usually see proffered by the Left:

Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to efforts in a number of Republican-led states to make it harder for people to vote.

Yikes!  So...anywhere from a half to two-thirds of voting-age citizens are informed, motivated folks who are systematically kept away from the polls by Republican voter-suppression efforts.

Seriously?

Forcing these 50%+ of voting-age citizens to the polls won't turn them into informed, motivated voters.  Any person who takes a half-serious look at human nature should be able to conclude two things: (1) These uninformed, unmotivated folks will look for the easiest way to avoid the failure-to-vote penalty (most likely a fine); and (2) The informed, motivated folks (both left and right) will be ready to help the uninformed, unmotivated folks discharge their duties in the most expedient way possible.

"Just tell me who to vote for, okay?"

This will come down to a contest of which ideological tribe can get the most apathetic sheep to the polls.  The Left's giddiness about the mandatory voting proposal is evidence enough that progressives believe that they would win that contest.

Be careful what you wish for (Or: This won't end well)

(Click image to view larger version)

This excellent point is usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the curators of all things Jefferson at Monticello insist that there is no evidence he is the source.  They also note that other claimed sources, such as Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford, are also spurious, although they are known to have employed the quote in their speeches.

As far as documentary evidence goes, the earliest written examples of the quote date back to the early 1950s; the original sage seems to have vanished into the mists of history.

Regardless of the quote's parentage, the point remains valid and deeply profound.  In my opinion, we are likely to see its validation in many unpleasant ways in the coming years and decades.

Memo #2 to Occupiers: You are almost certainly being played.

Well, the Occupiers haven't backed down on their Bolshevik rhetoric, so I'll go ahead and repeat the point I made in my last post:

If, somehow, your wildest dreams are realized and you end up overturning the capitalist system, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL WHAT TAKES ITS PLACE.

As soon as you realize you've been played by those who are even more nefarious than you are, it'll be too late -- you'll be a "stain on a tank tread".

Something tells me this is what Scott Adams had in mind with today's comic.

Quick Quote - Alexander Hamilton on the balance between state and federal power

Hamilton certainly did not envision a future where the states  willingly surrendered any leverage they had over the federal government.

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."

–Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

The causes are various, but one of the most egregious was the states’ ratification of the 17th Amendment, making the Senate a matter of popular vote rather than state appointment.

Whatever the reasons, the states now are for the most part submissive to the will of the federal government, and We The People are overwhelmingly the losers.

(Via Patriot Post)

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.

It’s becoming increasingly likely that conservatives will not like the 2012 GOP presidential nominee

Why?  Because, it seems, every politician with any kind of conservative following, hoping to harness the anti-Obama sentiment, will end up tossing their hats into the ring.

The latest to come to my attention is Roy Moore.  Moore gained fame (or notoriety, depending on one’s perspective) in 2003 – eight years ago – as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court when he defiantly placed a Ten Commandments monument outside the state’s courthouse.

He went on to parlay his fame into two unsuccessful bids for the Alabama GOP gubernatorial nomination.

His chance of gaining the GOP presidential nomination next year barely registers on the scale, but he does have his loyal fans among conservatives.

Now, as conservatives start to rally around an increasing number of flags, we’re increasing the likelihood that whatever candidate the establishment settles on will cruise to the nomination with the support of a ridiculously small plurality of GOP voter support.

Again.

Many conservatives recognize the problem, but the solution usually proffered is: “All conservatives should unite behind my favorite candidate!  Problem solved!”

To which other conservatives reply: “In your dreams!’

And so, as the rhetorical brawling goes on and on, our country slides ever deeper into the abyss.

How this election was like the Battle of Midway

In a November 13 American Thinker essay, Greg Richards provides what I think is an excellent metaphor for what was accomplished in this election (emphasis added):

After Jimmy Doolittle bombed Tokyo in April 1942, the Japanese decided to eliminate the U.S. Navy in a final battle. They sent a very strong force to occupy Midway Island, about 1,500 miles from Hawaii, figuring that this would be a challenge the Navy could not refuse and which would result in a decisive battle of annihilation of what was left of the American fleet. 

The Japanese did not realize that we had broken their naval code, and instead of being surprised at Midway, we bushwhacked them, sinking their entire striking force of four heavy carriers. The Battle of Midway, June 4, 1942, is regarded as one of the most decisive naval engagements in history. It was characterized by Admiral Ernest King, the Chief of Naval Operations, as having "restored the balance of power in the Pacific."

We have to remember, of course, that in June 1942, most of the war in the Pacific was in front of us. The battles of New Guinea, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and countless others had yet to be fought. So the Battle of Midway was a turning point only because it was followed by the will of the country to "win through to absolute victory," in the words of FDR.

If conservatives and constitutionalists are satisfied with the election outcome to the point that they demobilize, then we’ve already lost.

We haven’t won the victory – not even close.  We don’t have the political power to get the government back under constitutional control – not even close.  If we lack the commitment to “win through to absolute victory”, what was the point of this election?

A window of opportunity like this may not open again in our lifetimes.

Timing of Stevens retirement announcement belies Obama administration concerns about November elections

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had already telegraphed his intention to retire while Obama is president, so it was only a matter of when.

The WaPo reports today that he has now informed the president that he will retire at the end of the Court’s current term.  Why now?  On the surface, the timing seems pretty routine:

Stevens said he was announcing now so that the president would have time to make a nomination and the Senate to confirm in time for the start of the court's new term next October.

But why this year?  Stevens has been quite clear that he didn’t want a Republican to name his successor, so in theory his retirement could have, for example, waited until next year.

Then again, the Obama White House senses an ill wind blowing among the electorate, a wind that might sweep some or all of the Democrat majority out of the Senate in November. 

Even if the Dems retain their majority,  the loss of just a few seats would force Obama to choose a nominee that is far less radical than he would like.   Hence, given the uncertainties of November, there is no better time than now for Obama to get a justice more to his liking.

Is there any serious doubt that Stevens is deferring to the political calculations of the administration? 

Yes, yes, I know, it happens with Republican presidents too. 

The notion of an independent judiciary is long dead – yet another symptom of the twilight years of the American republic.

Quick Quote: Frédéric Bastiat on wealth redistribution

There’s an abundance of data supporting this from the experience of Communist societies, but certain western academics and politicians remain convinced that the problem resides in the execution of the philosophy, not in the philosophy itself.

If it were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, sanctioned by law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift would have no merit—charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation; for who would work if there was no longer to be any connection between labor and the satisfying of our wants?

-- Frédéric Bastiat, Essays on Political Economy

Feel free to draw your own applications to the financially destructive, liberty-smothering health care boondoggle that just passed.

We truly get the government we deserve

This would be outrageously funny if the implications for our republic weren’t so deadly serious.

Over the past few months, a reporter for CNSNews.com has been cornering various members of Congress and asking a simple question: Which part of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to mandate that every American buy health insurance?

Back in October I highlighted the answers given by three of them, but CNSNews has now done us the service of compiling all of the responses into a video. 

The answers vary, but here’s a rough sampling of what you’ll hear in the video embedded below:

• You’re kidding, right?  How can you ask such a question?
• I don’t know (said in a way that does not indicate embarrassment)
• You’ll need to ask the lawyers on our staff
• In the “commerce” clause
• In the “general welfare” clause
• In the same place that gives Congress the power to pass Medicare.  You’re not saying that Medicare is a bad thing, are you?  Some extremists actually say that we should get rid of Medicare.

The correct answer, of course, is that the Constitution does not empower Congress to pass laws like this.  Try to point this out to our congressfolks, though, and we’re called extremists. 

Decades of public schooling have resulted in generations of constitutionally-illiterate voters who happily keep returning these people to Washington.

EU implosion, update #6: Demographic collapse in Germany

In 2005 I did a series of posts outlining various political and demographic forces working against the attempted creation of the european superstate. 

How are they doing now? Even if political integration succeeds at first, it’s only a matter of time before the demographic time bomb alters the region beyond the recognition of anybody now living.

A January 21 article in German news website “The Local” outlines the challenge now facing that country:

Official figures on Thursday showed Germany's population shrank for the seventh year in a row in 2009, defying Chancellor Angela Merkel's bid to boost the country's birth rate.

The population was "81.8 to 81.7 million at the end of 2009," the Federal Statistics Office said, compared to 82.0 million in 2008. The number of births also dropped.

Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe - 1.4 children per woman - and data released in November suggested that at current rates, the country's population could shrink by up to 17 million in the next 50 years.

The article goes on to note the two major solutions that have been proposed.  Chancellor Merkel has introduced various incentives to encourage Germans to have more kids, but they don’t appear to be accepting the challenge.

That leaves massive immigration as the only real alternative.

Prof. Ralf E. Ulrich, a demographics specialist at the University of Bielefeld, said the figures were a wake up call for Germany to start a societal and political discussion about making the country more attractive to immigrants. He said the alternative would be forcing people to work much longer than they do now and slashing Germany's pension benefits.

Despite the fact that Germany would eventually be transformed into a country that is no longer German, natives are most likely to accept this solution, since it involves the least amount of personal inconvenience and allows the country’s welfare state to stagger along for a few more years… at least until the future majority population changes the laws more to their liking.

Remember the good old days when the national debt was only $8 trillion?

Actually, that was only four years ago.  In the years since, the acknowledged* debt has increased 50%, thanks mostly to the drunken spending binge in which Congress has engaged in the past year or so, with the encouragement of both presidents Bush and Obama (although Bush’s original TARP fund now seems quaint when compared with the spending initiatives of the Obama administration).

The Bureau of the Public Debt allows you to look up the acknowledged national debt for any given date in recent years.  At the moment I took this screenshot, the debt stood at TWELVE TRILLION, ninety-seven billion, nine hundred eighty-three million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, three hundred sixty-six dollars.  And sixty-five cents.

I say “acknowledged” national debt because the government holds substantial amounts of additional debt that are “off the books”.  For example, mandated future payouts in programs like Social Security and Medicare ought to be included because the government is supposedly committed to paying them, but the government doesn’t count these unfunded liabilities as debt until they have to borrow cash to pay them out. 

So how much would these unfunded liabilities add to the debt of the US government?  Richard W. Fisher, who heads up the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, had this to say in May of 2008:

Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

Now there’s a number that I doubt any of us will ever be able to get our minds around.  We could represent it with a stack of crisp, newly-printed dollar bills whose height is 25 times the distance from the earth to the moon (extending the calculation done here), but still, I don’t think anyone can truly appreciate how staggeringly-large that number is.

Just wait until the costs of Obama’s health care plan get added to the total (assuming it passes).  And then there’s Obama’s climate change agenda.  And then there’s the next economic stimulus.  And then there’s…….

Obama administration intends to rule by fiat if Congress doesn’t submit?

[Cross-posted from C-Pol’s companion site, The Global Warming Heretic]

According to a Fox News story today, administration officials acknowledge privately that the EPA’s newly-claimed powers allow the executive branch to function as a dictatorship if it so chooses.

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA's new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.

"This is not an 'either-or' moment. It's a 'both-and' moment," she said.

But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won't be pretty.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

So.  Obama would prefer that Congress take the actions that the administration demands of it.  But if Congress fails to get its act together, the administration will publicly hold Congress responsible for the economic chaos that will follow.

And that economic chaos is a virtual certainty if the administration resorts to fiat rule through the EPA. Who would want to invest in an economy where regulations are changing suddenly and radically (and almost always to the detriment of businesses)?

EPA declares plant food to be a public health threat

[Cross-posted from C-Pol’s companion site, The Global Warming Heretic]

A bit late in reporting on this, but hey, this is a blog, not a news service.  But just for the record, here’s what happened on Monday, as reported by the Associated Press:

The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.

Does anyone else see a logical disconnect here?  Not the Environmental Protection Agency, because they’ve consciously named carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.  A gas that occurs naturally, the existence of which is essential for plant life – is a dangerous pollutant.

And notice – only “manmade” carbon dioxide seems to be capable of causing global warming.  Oh, and how is it a danger to public health?  They don’t say here, but it’s obvious that they’re playing the Six Degrees game.

So, what kind of powers has the EPA amassed for itself by this “finding”?  The article gives us a taste:

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.

It almost certainly goes beyond this.  If human generated carbon dioxide emissions are as dangerous as the EPA says they are, there is no logical or moral reason why the EPA shouldn’t extend its regulatory tentacles into every aspect of our lives.

In other words, this finding will serve as the greatest mechanism ever devised for state control of American people and resources, all in complete, deliberate mockery of the constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government.

It’s almost as if that was the plan.

Visualizing the cost of the government’s economic “rescue” plan

The inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is preparing to submit a report to Congress tomorrow estimating the ultimate cost of all of the financial bailouts currently underway and in the works. Fox News reports IG Neil Barofsky’s stunning prediction in a July 20 article (emphasis added):

The total price tag for federal support stemming from the financial crisis could reach $23.7 trillion in the long run, the government's top bailout watchdog says in a new report to Congress.
Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, plans to deliver his report Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The $23.7 trillion figure is admittedly a high-ball number and reflects the total potential gross exposure, but Barofsky in his prepared testimony notes that the TARP -- which started as a $700 billion bailout -- has expanded well beyond that.
[…] In supporting documentation obtained by FOXNews.com, the inspector general's office explains that the $23.7 trillion spans about 50 "initiatives or programs" created by federal agencies in the wake of the economic crisis.
The estimate covers commitments that could come from programs at the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies.

Almost 24 trillion dollars!
Chances are that few of us have had reason to try to get our minds around a number that big, so let’s go through a little visualization exercise.
A stack of 3000 newly-printed one-dollar bills stands about a foot tall*. To get the height of 23.7 trillion one-dollar bills, the math looks like this:

23,700,000,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 7,900,000,000 feet

7.9 billion feet is about 1,496,212 miles. The moon is about 238,857 miles from earth; this stack of money is 6.26 times that distance.
Viewed another way, a dollar bill is about six inches long*. 23.7 trillion one-dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch 11.85 trillion feet, or about 2.24 million miles, almost 9400 times the distance from the earth to the moon.
Where is this money coming from, folks? Of course, a lot of it will be created out of thin air, but the rest of it will be sucked out of the economy in the name of saving it.
* Dollar bill length and stack height estimates are from 87billion.com, a site established a few years ago to help us visualize the amount of money spent in the War on Terror. The site, however, is woefully inadequate for helping us visualize the cost of the bailout, since the money spent on the war to date is just under $900 billion, a number that used to be impressive.


UPDATE: Here's another visualization of what one trillion dollars looks like. Just multiply the final image by 23.7. (Thanks to jellybean for the link)

Americans still embrace the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Or do they?

Just in time for America’s Independence Day holiday, Rasmussen has released its analysis of a poll examining the attitudes of Americans regarding the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the two crucial founding documents of the US – the other, of course, being the Constitution. The Constitution is the technical document outlining the structure and powers of the national government. The Declaration establishes the rational foundation for the very existence of this country.

Rasmussen’s strategy – and I’m not sure that this was the best idea – was to take various famous phrases from the document, and ask: “Do you agree with this?” The answers were recorded without any sure knowledge of what the respondent thought the phrase meant.

The response that jumped out to me was the one asking respondents’ opinion of this part of the Declaration:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The pollsters shortened this to “Governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed”. This paraphrase actually skirts around Jefferson’s profound assertion that the purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the people. But that’s the subject of another post, another time. The paraphrase was fair enough, because it adequately portrayed the other profound assertion in this statement.

So, what did the respondents think of the paraphrase?

56% Agree

25% Disagree

19% Not sure

Modern America has a shallow understanding of the phrase “consent of the governed”. Does it mean that, as long as most of the people are okay with it, the government can do whatever it pleases?

I would argue that this is what most people believe. In fact, this is the very essence of democracy: the will of the people legitimizes the actions of the government.

But America was not established as a democracy. It was established as a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there are boundaries to the “consent of the governed”.

Under our Constitution, the government is supposed to be constrained, regardless of the will of the people. Just because a majority of the people consent to (or even demand) some action of the government, such consent does not necessarily legitimize the action.

The many unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration, done to wide acclaim, should serve to abundantly illustrate the problem. President Obama does not recognize any meaningful boundaries on his powers to transform America in his image.

What about the 25% who disagree? I wish that Rasmussen could have asked some followup questions to find out what these respondents were thinking. For example, some might have been thinking of the biblical notion (found, for example, in Romans 13:1) that governments derive their just powers from God Himself. We’ll never know for sure if this is why they disagreed.

As for the 19%… who are these people? 1 in 5 people have no idea what makes a government legitimate? Are these the fabled “moderate” voters, who refuse to be pinned down on the important issues of the day?

Whatever. I wish more people would put more thought into what constitutes legitimate government, and that they would follow their reasoning through to its logical conclusion.

Despite the responses to this and other questions in the poll, I disagree with Rasmussen’s conclusion that Americans “still embrace ideals from the Declaration of Independence”.

How can they embrace what they do not comprehend?