TheMiddleofSomewhere

When Senator Evan Bayh resigned from Congress, his biggest complaint seemed to be that it had become “impossible to get anything done” in the Senate because of too much partisanship.
Along those lines,TV pundits and political spokespeople often use phrases like “get the country going again,” or “make progress” to describe what they wish Congress were doing. We even have politicians who call themselves “Progressives,” who belong to the “Progressive Caucus.”
The very name “progressive” suggests that these people believe that the country is headed somewhere and that they are the ones most dedicated to getting us there.

Others, of course, are convinced that progressive is a code word for liberal or left-wing extremist for whom progress means advancement toward a system requiring maximum state control over the citizenry.

But, in this context, what does “progress” actually mean? Language, one of man’s greatest inventions, is an essential tool for communication but only when people agree on what words mean. If I said list as many “Hollywood Stars” as you can and I’ll do the same, the chances are good that we’d write some of the same names on both lists because we broadly agree on what the word “star” means. I would bet, however, that two lists of what “national progress” means would be quite different. Even where such lists might overlap, say, by including “maximum employment,” further examination would reveal vast differences in how that goal should be achieved and maintained. As the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” Certainly, in the last presidential election, voters held very different definitions of the simple words “Hope” and “Change.”

What’s going on in Washington these days was inevitable and a long time coming. It’s the collision between fundamentally different and ardently-held political philosophies where compromise is hardly to be expected. Describing Republicans as the “Party of No” ignores the Democrats’ negative resposes to ideas like “tort reform” or “privatizing” social security, etc. Each party is the “party of no” when it comes to the fundamentals of each other’s philosophy.

Some people are overjoyed when a huge snowstorm prevents Congress from meeting and the government pretty much shuts down. After all, as countries go, ours is pretty good even with just the status quo. But we do have big problems.

So what is to be done? Whatever it is, it will have to be determined by the political philosophies of the majority of the American people. What’s that you say? You don’t have a political philosophy. Believe me, you do; you just may not know how to express it yet. You could start by determining what “progress” means to you. Then work to elect politicians who share your views.

I hope your views will include adherence to that oath that the President and many other officials are required to take. It’s a good one: “To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

At least that’s the way it looks from here.

© Dwight Boud 2010

UK Daily Mail reporter Jonathan Petre has written the following about Professor Phil Jones, one of the primary sources of “information” regarding the climate change “crisis” whose work formed much of the basis for Al Gore’s slide show, “An Inconvenient Truth” :

“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

Even a casual reading of the latest on “Climate Change” reveals that the climate-change campaign is coming apart at the seams. Many people, ranging from scientists to ordinary citizens, have been convinced over the past decade or so that the earth needed “saving,” that we faced an immediate crisis unless drastic global action were taken. There were strong suggestions that National Sovereignty would have to be sacrificed to enable experts to institute programs big enough to save humanity and polar bears.

One would think that in light of these and other revelations we should pause to reassess. Even those who still are convinced that global change is real and man-made need to take time to factor into their thinking the growing body of evidence that the Climate Change campaign is a put up job. Perhaps take time to read Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” (complete with footnotes).

Yet in the face of these new developments, we read in the The NY Times that the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions (cap and trade/tax) languishes in the Senate. Again it seems that President Obama and his administration either haven’t gotten the word or choose to ignore it. Why?

Dwight Boud ©2010

Candidate Barack Obama told “Joe the plumber” that he thought we were all better off when we redistributed the wealth. Now, as President, he’s proceeding to do just that. In other words under Obama’s leadership, the government is taking money from those who have it to make it available to others who don’t. Generally, (not always) those who create wealth are those who are most productive, most creative, and/or most industrious.

When wealth is taken from those who worked hard to earn it and given to those who didn’t, the producers, over time, lose their incentive to work. (Consumption of vodka in the Soviet Union benefitted hugely from this circumstance.) This, of course, threatens to reduce the amount of “wealth” available for redistribution. When the New England Pilgrims first established themselves in Plymouth, they tried the share-the-wealth approach. Soon, according to Governor and historian William Bradford, it became obvious that some were slacking and relying on others to produce all the food for the community. Leaders decided that thenceforward each family would be expected to plant its own plot to provide its own sustenance.

What is there about present circumstances to suggest that wealth redistribution will be any more successful that it has been historically? Nothing.

When people decide that they would rather rely on others to provide for them, overall productivity drops. It then becomes incumbent on the government to require them to return to work. There’s a word for forcing people to work against their wills. It’s called slavery. The normal incentive to work, enlightened self-interest, is replaced by government coercion.

The road we are traveling under the present “progressive” administrative, could well lead to slavery. The irony of this is obvious.

How in the world could the Federal Government possibly compel newly unproductive people to work against their will or in occupations they haven’t freely chosen? After all it’s against the law to use the military against American citizens and there simply aren’t enough police to do such a massive job. One would think that a politician who planned to lead the country down this road would have thought of all this. Well, perhaps he did. Perhaps that is why Barack Obama claimed that we need a “civilian homeland defense force that is as well-funded as the military”, in other words a republican guard, a domestic force responsible only to the President.

Too paranoid? I hope so. Stay tuned.

© Dwight Boud 2010

Or is it without makeup, then with makeup?