A Dangerous Disaffection

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; that is a foundational principle of our republic. To a stunning degree, however, Americans don't believe that their own government meets that standard. Scott Rasmussen finds that only 23 percent of voters believe that 'the federal government today has the consent of the governed.' A remarkable 62 percent of voters say that our government does not enjoy that consent.

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn't vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one--a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

The strongest evidence is the history of federal spending in the modern era, which began in the 1960s. Here it is, in constant dollars; click to enlarge:


There have been several occasions when the American people have voted for smaller government; most notably in 1972, 1980 and 1994. But it really doesn't matter. You can vote for limited government, but you can't get it; the political class won't let you. This is not to assert the silly proposition that there is no major difference between Democrats and Republicans. The fiscal disaster that we have witnessed since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 proves the contrary. But still: experience shows that voting for Republicans hasn't been enough to offset the power of the political class.

The main currents of our contemporary politics involve ordinary citizens rebelling against their masters in the political class. While by no means the only manifestation of this rebellion, the Tea Party movement is the most notable. What has happened to the Tea Party is instructive. It was first ignored, then ridiculed. Agents of the status quo like news services, newspapers, network news operations and the NAACP have been enlisted to lodge absurd charges of 'racism' against Americans who protest out-of-control government spending. The Empire is striking back.

It remains to be seen whether the American people can finally break the grip of a political class that remains determined to run their lives and misappropriate trillions of dollars of their wealth. It will be, I think, a close-run thing. In the meantime, there is no mystery as to why most Americans do not regard the federal government as legitimate in Jeffersonian terms.

We must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

From Redstate:

Erick appropriately posted the powerful words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 earlier. As a graduate of Mr. Jefferson’s University, I am obliged to promote it yet again, of course. However, I have always felt the Declaration understandably but unfortunately overshadows the many steps that got us to that point. One of those, of course, was fellow Virginian Patrick Henry’s famous speech delivered at St. John’s Church in 1775. That speech is famous for the line, “Give me liberty or give me death,” and for good reason - but the speech in its entirety says so much more about the cause for freedom.

Of note: There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

Enjoy the speech in its entirety and God Bless America.

**************

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, St. John’s Church in 1775

Ideas have consequences and so do attitudes

Read Article at Poweline

Politico reports that Democrats are encountering a brutal fundraising period in their longtime donor stronghold of mega-rich New York. The exact quarterly figures won't be known until after the July 15 filing deadline, but some Democratic campaign insiders are calling this the worst period for fundraising they've experienced in the New York area since 1994 (there's that year again).

It isn't difficult to figure out what the problems are. They include non-stop bashing of Wall Street by the administration; the substantial loss of wealth among donors caused by the recession; demoralization among Democrats caused by the party's loss of popularity and to some extent by disillusionment with the performance of Obama and Congress, the president's arrogance, which prevents him from mingling much with wealthy donors; and the administration's anti-Israeli posture.

Democratic fundraising problems don't automatically translate into inroads for Republicans, but they do provide an opportunity. According to Politico, Sen. John Cornyn 'has has been in New York roughly every six weeks, and is a familiar face at the Regency Hotel power-breakfast circuit on Park Avenue.' And a seven-candidate fundraiser hosted by hedge fund founder Paul Singer in New York last week reportedly raised well over $1 million for a handful of GOP Senate hopefuls. Politico calls this 'a staggering amount that surprised several Democratic fundraisers.' Among the donors were some 'who are typically Democratic givers.'

Similarly, a fundraiser hosted by Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official who is active in the Jewish community, included some Democratic donors. According to Senor, some guests told him 'I've never written a check to a Republican in my life.' Senor added that he's hearing from some Jewish Democratic donors who 'are either sitting on their hands, or giving to Republicans.'

There are many things to dislike about the Obama administration and Democratic rule, even among the rich New York liberals who have mindlessly contributed to the Dems for years. It's possible that Obama sees the erosion of financial support among this crowd as some kind of badge of honor, but his party is certain to be far less sanguine.

If things continue on the present course, perhaps the rich New York donor base will begin clamoring for the longtime source of their largesse, the Clintons.

Blackfive Poll: 91% prefer less restrictive ROE

Blackfive Poll: 91% prefer less restrictive ROE

A recent Blackfive poll found that 91 percent of those surveyed found the military's rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan 'too restrictive.'

Eight percent were satisfied with the current ROE, while fewer than one percent felt the ROE were not restrictive enough.

1,019 participated in the online poll which was posted at Blackfive from 30 June to 4 July.

WANE-TV – Bluffton Tea Party Coverage