What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.That's an argument readers of the Hall will find quite familiar. Still, that's a hundred years ago.
It's a piece worth reading all the same. Nevertheless, something more is needed to explain why voters are so angry right at this moment.
14 comments:
Why now? Because, despite all the crap inflicted on us over the years, up till now, most people had a perception that things were getting better, their incomes were improving, their children would be better off than they were, etc.
Now, over the past few years, we have seen our income stagnant or declining in the face of an actual 10% per year rate of inflation, our youth unable to find work, our sense of pride (and security) as Americans trashed openly by the elites, and we generally feel "the good times are really over for good." Our military successes have been thrown away , and an ever more intrusive nanny state seeks to regulate everything we do, with the lone exception of sexual perversions. Meanwhile a staggering debt keeps building, never to be repaid, and set to crush us and our kids.
We are now noticeably over the crest of the hill and picking up speed.
I think it is communication.
It used to be that people like Ymar would just be a crank in a basement somewhere, (and any number of the rest of us too for that matter.) and the gate keepers of the media gate kept, and although there were definitely times when people were mad, the election of 1932, the election of 1972, the election of 1980 come to mind, the 'why are people so angry' was muted by the inability for people to actually communicate.
That's only really been around for about 20 years or so. And even so, those initial forms of internet communication tended to mirror the old, (bulletin boards, forums etc) but the rise of smart phones and all the other platforms for sharing communication have start to mature. And, everybody has them now. Everybody.
The rather blatant shenanigans of the Obama administration over the last 8 years basically has brought all this to a head right now, right here.
Not just now. It's been growing for nearly 100 years, low key at first, then with an acceleration during and after the FDR years, and a further acceleration beginning in the fall of 2008 when the House waffled and then folded over the Panic of 2008.
Eric Hines
I think it's more a question of 'is this another correction as in '32, '72, '80... or is it going to grow into something more acute?
The other question is 'are there still enough citizens who believe in the founding principles of this experiment, or has the tide turned?'. That's a pretty good question right now.
If the USA can survive WIlson and FDR, the USa can certainly survive Cruz, Trump, Kerry, and Clinton put together.
The problem, as always, are the voters. The Human Poison. They are the thing that will never go away, for they are a necessary component.
and the gate keepers of the media gate kept, and although there were definitely times when people were mad, the election of 1932, the election of 1972, the election of 1980 come to mind, the 'why are people so angry' was muted by the inability for people to actually communicate.
EB has a point, there at least. People before FDR, said FDR would destroy the country. There were certain sources on that, although flimsy. But people existed back then that knew what FDR was, but they were silenced, the way Trump Alt Right silenced Cruz or GOP E silenced Palin.
Humans are born to live in a society with a hierarchy and rules. Social pressure is the first option and probably the most effective. Government tyranny is far less effective, although more powerful.
"To grow more acute"--you really have to think that one through. I don't actually deal with logistics in my job, but I do get to observe the stuff.
"Acute" is basically ambiguous. But for purposes of discussion I'll treat it as 'armed rebellion against the Federal government' (either Obama's or hypothetical Trump or Clinton administrations).
And to that, I say nothing is going to happen. The prime American historical examples are the War of Independence and the War of the Rebellion (or war of Northern Agression, or the War to preserve Slavery, or the "I don't like Lincoln so we're gonna secede" war, whatever you wanna call it).
IN those cases, LOCAL and STATE governments took up arms against the King's and the Federal governments respectively, and I have seen nothing except a few "We ain't gonna do what the EPA says" sort of things out of any other state and local governments so far. The closest I've seen to anything is the local law enforcement refusal in a couple of places (particularly NY and CT) to enforce onerous gun laws that were passed by those state legislatures, and then that's a NY or CT issue, not a USA issue. Yet.
Race war? Naah. Eventually the media will get the message and stop whipping up outrage over some black guy getting killed by a white cop. They already don't bother to cover black guys getting killed by black cops. And, absent some really major turn of direction in the drug prohibition, black (and other) drug dealers will go back to shooting each other over stuff, with the usual instances (like what just happened in FL) of 'innocents' getting hit in the cross fire.
Really, stop watching the news, and nearly all this commotion just disappears, unless it happens to occur in your neighborhood for some reason.
I think there's been anger for a long, long time, but it started boiling over with Bush's election and the decision by the USSC. That began what became about 5 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which I think is one important aspect of why people are so angry.
I've mentioned before that, for the right, the enemy was always foreign, and for the left, always domestic. Folks on the right never really understood how much the left hated them until those 5 nasty years of BDS. It was a sustained period of unhinged hatred directed at the right that marked a turning point.
I think the right took it to heart and began to think of the left increasingly as enemies.
That shift changed how the left was viewed in significant ways. Instead of being seen as merely wrong, which was the case for decades, they are now increasingly being viewed as trying to bring down the Republic and replace it with an authoritarian, elitist, technocracy.
The more folks on the right think that, the more they see the similarities between the American left and many leaders on the American right. Thus, they feel a double sense of betrayal: First, from their fellow Americans on the left, and second, by many of their own leaders.
It was a sustained period of unhinged hatred directed at the right that marked a turning point.
That's always been the case, but until the face of the Demoncrats had cracked, people always thought that they would unite with the rest of the country in fighting foreign enemies. Iraq and the Left's alliance with Islam, shattered the dreams and hopes of those people. The Left could only operate in this country under cover the US Constitution, thus they pretended to be patriots, or pro free speech, or pro choice, or whatever it was the underlying society demanded of the mainstream religion or faithful. Even Kerry attempted to trump up his War Hero status in Vietnam, irregardless of the Left's actual allegiances and efforts there.
Thus people tolerated domestic hatred and rioting, much as they tolerated Democrats lynching abolitionists before Lincoln was on the horizon, circa 1830. Either they could do nothing, or it didn't matter too much, until a civil war blows up at least. There's a point where even the most indoctrinated and tolerant population begins to think otherwise, Europe included.
That shift changed how the left was viewed in significant ways. Instead of being seen as merely wrong, which was the case for decades, they are now increasingly being viewed as trying to bring down the Republic and replace it with an authoritarian, elitist, technocracy.
US mainstream patriots never did openly admit that Demoncrats were evil, not even FDr or LBJ or Wilson. That's because, for the most part, the Demoncrats had their mask and we all agreed to disagree back then, in one big happy Beaver family. That started becoming strained when Hussein Obola was considered bad, although not necessarily evil. Then Rod Damn comes along, and now people can easily label her evil, just as they labeled Cruz evil. The cork has been uncapped, and society's decrees of maintaining that Democrats=good intentions, has broken. Although the Republicans=evil thing is still around, hence why Americans follow Trump in thinking of Cruz as evil. That's not merely a political alliance, it's a downright faithful conversion to a religion, much as Hussein's Lightbringer and Messiah status was to the Leftist alliance.
Republicans may have thought FDR was evil, but they didn't broadcast it to everybody, their families included. They would get blacklisted. Just as Republicans in Hollywood got blacklisted and persecuted. Just as Christians are under the Leftist regime. Now, online at least, Republicans easily call Rod Damn Clinton evil. It's like it is the easiest thing now, only because Society Permits it now. And what is not permitted, is still forbidden.
Well, society is in flux. There is no longer just a small number of gatekeepers who decide what's permitted and what's not. What Eric Blair said about communication is true. The number of gatekeepers has exploded, and the old systems are coming apart.
There is no longer just a small number of gatekeepers who decide what's permitted and what's not. What Eric Blair said about communication is true. The number of gatekeepers has exploded, and the old systems are coming apart.
Much like when the Catholic Church, the Papacy, was first questioned by Luther. However, because of that, religious wars increased, because a single Christian hierarchy could keep people from fighting each other, but not a bunch of dozens with no single moral authority.
That increases the likelihood of a Civil War 2 in the USA.
Maybe, but with the Reformation there were whole nations that switched to some branch of Protestantism, so a war between a Protestant state and a Catholic state was conducted more easily. (Granted, we are talking about the established religion in each nation, not everyone in the nation, but the princes controlled the armies.)
Even in our Civil War, the CSA had actual states with governments to begin with.
The French Revolution might be a model for a new American Civil War. However, we don't have their class system or resentments, or their years of crop failures that pushed those resentments over the line, etc. Still, this is a more likely model.
Anyway, back to religion, it's an interesting analogy. However, while the Pope had actual power in some areas, the media never did. They are a conduit of information, not command. But I do think this may make small-scale violence more likely. One example would be the Black Lives Matter-related cop killings.
Maybe, but with the Reformation there were whole nations that switched to some branch of Protestantism, so a war between a Protestant state and a Catholic state was conducted more easily. (
Before the reformation, the Pope had to give you permission for marriage/divorce/wars against Christian lords.
The Byzantines had a slightly different system, with the Emperor handing out authority. The pentarchs were originally under the Eastern Roman Emperor, as vassals.
Now the Pope may have been in similar powerless situations, like when the Pope went to Charlemagne to beg for some armies to get his land and authority back. In return, the Pope crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor, which helped form the HRE and absorb the Saxons/Germans.
To get to the point, the secular rulers could more easily obtain de jure claims or justifications for war against heretics (non Catholics). In fact, the Pope called for a holy war against the Cathars in France, once, which also included the eliminating and land revoking of French aristocrats. Other than that, Christian nations, in feudalism, were relatively peaceful or stable (minus Vikings and claim wars).
Anyway, back to religion, it's an interesting analogy. However, while the Pope had actual power in some areas, the media never did. They are a conduit of information, not command.
True about the media, but the media didn't operate in a vacuum. When the tv had ABC, CBS, and NBC only, that was backed by Leave it to Beever, and various other pro American culture reinforcement. To solidify people into this great post WW2, nuclear family. It promoted conformity, from the state, and the media were merely the messengers. As people didn't learn to challenge the status quo, the Leftists resurged in the 60s-70s. That was actually the New Guard that resurged, because their parents had "given up" upon Communism, due to the declassified Verona documents about Stalin. Verona or Venona... eh, can't remember.
Getting to the point, the Pope acted as a release valve or arbitrator in European history, from about 800AD to Luther's time even. When the nobility and kings grew in power, eventually they began challenging the Pope.
The coolant tanks for America was our shared belief in patriotism, in defending the nation against foreign and domestic enemies, in this common shared values and principles. The media helped reinforce that, even as they became corrupt. Hollywood helped reinforce that in WWII, even as they became corrupt.
Luther wasn't the only one who helped shatter the Pope's moral authority. Henry 8th did as well. Princes and kings in the past could wage war without the Pope's permission, then get excommunicated, or even take land in Italy and also get excommunicated. But that did not decrease the moral authority of the Pope, as leader of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ supposedly. Heresy or a split of the church, did. Just as it did in the Council of Chalcedon, and when the Roman Catholic split off from the Orthodox Christians in Anatolia.
I gave a more precise description of the Leftist alliance's C3 here before, though I consider the MSewerM to be a faction, not so much a C in the 3 or 4. JournoList, for example, would be command, control, communications, for the journalist faction in the Left.
BLivesM are merely another Nation of Islam and Black Panther killing spree. Look those two key words up, and you'll see some data points. They were always against the mainstream.
No, I'm referring to mainstream violence becoming easier, thus CW2.
Also, some of the mails out of Clinton's whatever servers, shows a close connection to the DNC or Democrat operatives and journalists. Including the DNC operatives directly calling journalists to pull someone off the air for whatever they might have just said.
Grim and others asked me why the Leftist alliance was a central hierarchy and command chain, where the proof would be. Well, the proof would be in who gave the orders, would it not. Somebody gave the orders, even for Fast and Furious and Waco 1/2.
These orgs don't just decide on their own to move. IRS didn't decide to delete their mails on a whim.
Post a Comment