Just One Point as We Enter the Next Installment of The Impeachment Show

The next installment of The Impeachment Show begins Wednesday.  The continuing saga of an elite group obsessed with the fact that they lost to a man they hate, a man who is actually performing for the country and doing things that those elite have only promised for decades or simply written off as impossible.

In this episode, like the previous installments, you will be told over and over that the President is evil.  You will be told he is destroying America.  You will be told that if you support him you too are evil and if you don’t join the Impeachers then you will likely go to Hell (assuming you are still archaic enough to still believe in such foolish Biblical concepts that the elite have rejected). 

The Impeachers of course follow the belief that if they simply repeat something often enough then you will believe it to be true.  They see no need for facts or evidence.  Their narrative will control, even if it has no basis in reality. 

The episode will continue to show us how the Democrats’ obsession with destroying the President supersedes all else in their lives, including their job which is to represent the people, pass laws that benefit the country.  It has been a year since the President agreed to a new and better trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.  The Impeachers have still not found time to bring it before Congress for a vote.  They are obsessed instead with holding hearing after hearing designed to remove the President from office.

The Impeachers scheduled the current episode while the President will be abroad, conducting the country’s foreign affairs.  Their invitation to him to participate shows their focus is only on catching and destroying the President, for if he were to accept it would mean forgoing the business of the country, yet if he does not accept, they condemn him for that. 

They are focused on one thing and one thing only.  Destroying the President because he beat them in the 2016 election and is likely to win again in 2020.  Because their sole focused goal is destruction of a man they hate, they are blind to the fact that they are destroying the country in the process.  Not only sewing discord daily among the people, but actually encouraging the disregard and ultimate destruction of our Constitution, our laws, our traditional values, and our very way of life.

So, in this episode the Impeachers will bring in selected witnesses, including professorial types who will comment on the Constitution.  Of course it is doubtful that the witnesses will profess anything that is counter to the narrative of the Democrats, despite the fact that there are many Constitutional experts and scholars who do not stand with the Impeachers and whose testimony could surely reveal the many faults in their hateful narrative game that they are playing.

The Impeachers do not seem to understand that opinion vs. opinion does not result in some sort of guilty verdict.  For that one needs hard facts.  Indeed, America is all about people being tolerant of differing opinions, debating them and the policies they reflect, and speaking their support for those policies in the voting booth.  The Impeachers do not understand that a difference of opinion or hurt feelings that such difference may cause are not grounds for removing a president who was voted into office by the people.  In their obsession to remove the President, they ignore the fact that to do so overturns the will of the people, silences them, and directly contravenes our system of government.

This installment of the Impeachment Show is no different from its predecessors – fake dossier, campaign interference, collusion with Russia, Russian agent, etcetera, etcetera.  Those were just the stage trappings.  And this installment is not about quid pro quo or bribery or coercion or campaign interference or use of office for political gain.  It is about the same old thing and one thing only – getting rid of the President so that those elites, who think they know what is good for the people and should therefore be allowed to silence the voice of the people, can take power.

For that is what the Impeachers truly want.  Power to enforce their narrative upon each and every one of us, to silence those of us who disagree.  The destruction of the President is just one step in their ultimate quest for power.  With that destruction can come the destruction of the office of president and with that the destruction of three equal branches of government while at the same time it will destroy the very government of/for/by the people which is the cornerstone of our democracy.

So, the Drama returns on Wednesday.  The Impeachers vs. America.  Watch hard as they work to convince you that mere opinion without fact must control your life – as long as it is their opinion  Watch hard as they try to implant their narrative in your brain by cunning, and repetition, and by disrespecting your individual thoughts and values. 

Remember as you watch this show that this is your country, not theirs.  That is the one point around which this entire show centers.  The real question is will you cede your power and independence to the power hungry, or will you stand with the people and not let their many voices, the voices that are America, be silenced. 

The Crisis of the Crisis Song

Daily the Left tells us in one way or another that we are in a political crisis.  The song has many titles:  The Constitutional Crisis; the Crisis of Leadership; The Crisis of Democracy; The Partisan Crisis; The Resistance; Impeachment, The 25th Amendment, The Abnormal Political Times; and many others.

Any “political crisis” has been manufactured by those who want you to believe there is a political crisis.    That is not really a crisis, or if it is, the crisis is that so few understand how our democracy works and so are willing to blindly accept the daily assertions of crisis.

A few short examples are in order.  First, the Kavanaugh hearings.  Many of the Democrats seem to believe that the people are uneducated about our democracy and they were willing to try to exploit that.  There was the grandstanding of releasing “confidential” documents that knowingly had already been cleared for release, claiming it was to avoid the “constitutional crisis” of lack of transparency.  There was the edited video used in an attempt to smear the nominee.  But, beyond that there was the use of sad stories, court opinions that followed the law but ended up with a ruling against the more sympathetic party.  Anyone who would believe that a judge should ignore the law to instead rule in favor of currently popular emotion and policy knows nothing about our judicial system and is at best unclear about the Constitution.  And then of course there were the assertions that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Judge would somehow take some outrageous action against one or another identity group.  Finally, the Democrats seemed to want to talk more about the President, perhaps in an effort to discern whether or not the nominee would assist them in their never ending quest to remove Donald Trump from office; when the judge would not buy into this game of theirs they again asserted the “constitutional crisis.”

Another example is the anonymous letter in the New York Times claiming a deep state resistance within the President’s inner circle.  Aside from supporting the until now often dismissed claims of the existence of an anti-Trump deep state, what this letter and much reaction to it reveals is a frightening lack of understanding about our government.  While many on the Left cheer this “resistance,” do they not understand that in this country regime change comes via democratic election, not via white house intrigue and attempted coups by those who did not see their candidate prevail?   If this inner circle “resistance” actually exists, it is treasonous and is more befitting of dictatorships than our Democratic Republic. Failure to understand that is the "Constitutional crisis" if any such crisis exists.

But more than specific examples such as the above, is the fact that there is a constant assertion in this country by the Left that things are bad and it is all the fault of the President and that therefore we are in a “Constitutional Crisis” calling for removal of the President by Impeachment or other means.  But, other than the fact that those asserting this are still bitter about the 2016 election, there is really nothing on which to base their crisis song.  Depending on one’s perspective,  some things are better than before the election, some things are the same, some things are worse.  Certainly, the economy is thriving, and that gives us another example.  When the crisis singers have good news to deal with, they then announce that it will not last, and therefore there is a crisis so dire that we must remove the President.

We now have the former President breaking all precedent to go on a sour grapes tour not unlike that which Hillary Clinton embarked upon following her loss.  He who once said the jobs are gone, deal with it, and that he did not know how to bring them back, now claims that their return is somehow his doing and we should thank him and remove the current President who is in fact bringing us jobs.  Barack Obama has now joined the crisis chorus, seemingly simply because the current President does not agree with or continue the former's policies.

There are songs about the partisan hatred.  Well, in my opinion this did not begin in 2016, but I do believe it has been and is being fueled by the identity politics practiced so well by the Left.  If one wants to see hatred behind every corner, every misplaced smile or thoughtless word, so be it.  Again, that is not reason to remove a president.

The only crisis, really, is in these crisis singers’ heads.  The crisis is that they cannot deal with the fact that someone they did not choose was elected president and that his policies are often different from theirs.  These overwhelming emotions over their failure to get what they wanted are no more a crisis than are the histrionics of the teen who sees the end of the world when he or she does not get the desired date for prom.   Not getting one’s own way is simply not a crisis!

The real crisis is that so many who benefit from the many blessings of our government do not understand how that government works.  What they don’t understand is that in this country we elect a president and the winner often has policy positions that differ from those of the loser.  We do not oust the sitting and duly elected president by making everything into some sort of crisis that requires his removal.  We do not oust him by some sort of back room resistance.  We do not attack and demean those who voted differently or hold different positions on issues important to us.  And we do not attack our very form of government just because it did not work in our favor this time.

There is no Constitutional crisis but there clearly is an educational crisis.   Making every action or policy or person one does not like into a Constitutional crisis is not a mature way to deal with loss, nor is it a rational campaign strategy.   Rather than hours spent plotting for the removal of the President based on some crisis that exists only in their head, many would better use those hours reading the Constitution and taking a civics class.   And, those who do understand how our government works need to start demanding that those who delight in singing the crisis songs explain how they are anything more than emotional outbursts from those who are not getting their way and who do not understand why that is not a crisis in a democracy.

In the end, the crisis is not a crisis.  The song is nothing more than an emotional wail.  We need to start listening to something else.

Debating Socialism

Recently someone suggested that it was time that this country has a debate about socialism vs. our current form of government.  I think that is fine if – and only if! – those engaged in the conversation really understand what socialism is along with other key concepts about governments and political ideologies.  So, here I will present some of those concepts and then my thoughts for those who want to realistically think about or engage in such a debate.

First, we must understand the difference between political philosophies/theories/ideologies (such as socialism) and forms of government (such as democracy).  A political philosophy will take a particular stance as to law and authority, as to what, if any, rights and freedoms a government should protect and what, if any, responsibilities the citizenry of a defined state owes to the government.    A defined state or nation will have a form of government that may align with one or more political ideologies. 

Government is simply the governing body of a defined community such as a nation or state.  Forms of government include Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy.  An autocratic government might be an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship; the key is that the power to govern is held by one person.  In an oligarchy the power will be held by a few people who generally get their power from things like ancestry, wealth/status, or military.  In a democracy the government is ruled by the people who hold the power to govern; a republic is a form of democracy.

The United States is a Democratic Republic which is a form of government operating on principles adopted from and shared by both democracy and republic.  In a pure democracy which is governed by all eligible members, the majority will always prevail.  A republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people but exercised through their elected representatives, including a president.  A republic will include certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority.

Within any form of government, political parties, including that of the controlling power, will align with and adopt one or more political theories or ideologies.  When one political theory becomes dominant within a particular state, that state may be referred to by that theory’s name (e.g. as Socialist or Capitalist).  Following are those political theories and philosophies that are most relevant to this discussion.

Socialism is a theory for a political and economic system of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  That is, it advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

This is in contrast to Capitalism that is a theory for an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism's ideology is an economic and political system in which all property is publicly owned; it adheres to the revolutionary socialism and class warfare of Karl Marx.  While both communism and socialism are anti-capitalist, many forms of socialism allow for some private ownership of property. 

According to Wikipedia, “The majority of self-declared Socialist countries have been Marxist–Leninist states, following the model of the Soviet Union or a variant of people's democracy. They share a common definition of ‘socialism’ and they refer to themselves as Socialist states on the road to communism with a leading vanguard party structure. For this reason, they are generally, called ‘Communist states’ albeit erroneously. Meanwhile, the [socialist] countries in the non-Marxist–Leninist category represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the word ‘socialism’. In many cases, they do not define what they mean by it. Modern uses of the term ‘socialism’ are wide in meaning and interpretation.”   Current self-labeled socialist countries are:  China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

Two sub-categories of Socialism are Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  These terms define particular socialist leaning ideologies or policies of various political parties that exist or have majority control in various countries. 

Social Democracy is an ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic organization and capitalist economy.  One could argue that some of the Nordic countries currently follow social democratic ideologies.

Democratic Socialism (many progressives now identify as democratic socialists) is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with self or “democratic” management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy.  That is, democratic socialism would have the production and provision of certain goods and services owned and run by the government, while leaving others to a more capitalist form of ownership. Wikipedia lists the following countries as currently in the control of a democratic socialist party:  Albania, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Dominica, Equator, El Salvador, Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Portugal, St. Kitts, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Moving now to the actual debate, I would first suggest that it actually must be more of a discussion than a debate.   A debate presumes there are only two sides or positions on an issue, one of which must ultimately prevail.  A discussion on the other hand allows for more refined distinctions and compromises which the many definitions of socialism alone demand. Moreover, the debate, as presented, requires pitting a form of government (our Democratic Republic) against a political theory (Socialism).  This is not unlike trying to compare apples and oranges.  The better question is not one of socialism vs. a democratic republic, but rather whether socialism can or should be adopted as a viable political theory within a democratic republic that is generally considered as a capitalist nation. 

I believe that, no matter how the question is presented, our democratic republic based on capitalism is so antithetical to socialism that it is impossible to truly have democratic socialism or any other such marriage of socialism into the defining principles of the United States of America.

The basic question comes down to the role of the individual in his own governance as well as the governance of his community.  Socialism, in all its many forms, will have the government making decisions about the individual and his property, including the fruits of his labor; the government will provide what the individual may otherwise be required to or capable of providing for himself.  In so doing, the government, rather than the individual, will make decisions about what the individual may or may not need.  In order to provide government-controlled services to all members of the community, the individual will be required to relinquish some property, individual accomplishment, and profit as well as some personal decision making that he would otherwise retain. 

The upside of this approach is that one can envision a utopia in which everyone has all that they need and want, where everyone is completely altruistic in all that they give to the body politic, and everyone is happy.  This assumes that those making the governmental decisions will always have only the best interests of the people in mind and that all the citizenry will agree as to the definition of what those “best interests” are.

The downside is that such utopia is totally unrealistic.  And, even if it were, even if those in current power were completely concerned with only the good of everyone, they will not be in power forever. Moreover, the definition of what is “good” is unlikely to be defined identically by all and even if it were, it might easily change to the detriment of some or many.  By giving government the power to act in accordance with what sounds and/or is compassionate today sets the stage for tomorrow’s government to use that same power for ill.

This is true regardless of within what form of government a socialist philosophy is placed.  That is, a benevolent dictator can give way to a tyrannical dictatorship, but also a pure democracy with a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities if that majority holds the socialist power to regulate the community including the individual’s property, production, needs, and wants.

Here is the beauty of a democratic republic based on capitalist principles.  First, the democratic republic follows the rule of law, not of a tyrannical individual or majority.  It grants to its citizens certain inalienable rights; rights that cannot be denied to the individual based on changing whims of government.  Second, capitalism further solidifies the rights (as well as responsibilities) of the individual.  The individual will be accorded certain rights which the law will protect.  It will allow the individual to pursue the use of his assets (both external and physical as  well as innate and intellectual) as he chooses and will not redistribute his profits to others who have chosen to pursue different paths or to use their assets differently.

This does not mean that a capitalist or non-socialist state cannot be compassionate.  Placed within a democratic form of government where rule is by law, the people who hold the power can, through their elected representative government make the choice to collectively assist those who may need some form of assistance.  But, that decision would be made by the people in a way that does not interfere with defined and constitutionally protected inalienable rights; it would not be a decision made at the whim of some other form of governmental power structure.

Socialism is dangerous.  It sounds wonderful in its utopian equality, but what it really does is end up playing one group of citizens against another while promising utopia to all.  Collectives destroy individual incentives and the result is bread lines and misery.  Recent history saw this in the Soviet Union before its fall and even more recently in Greece’s economic crisis.  Current history sees it playing out in Venezuela.  Even in social democracies that may seem to thrive, how “social justice” is defined by the government in power can result in good or ill for one group or another.

Idealism is beautiful, but it is just that – an ideal, an archetypical idea of unattainable perfection.  It is not real.  Reality includes the imperfect, acknowledges it, and tries to make the best of it.  In my opinion, socialism may be a lovely ideal, but it is not something that can exist is our reality.  Our capitalist Democratic Republic is not perfect, but it is very real, and, it is the only form of government that can respect, reward, and fulfill the individual regardless of who is in power at any given moment.

Socialism, in any of its forms or wrappings, is in direct opposition to the core principles of the United States of America; principles that provide the individual with choice and possibility beyond any that can be offered and that are indeed denied by socialism.  It is these core principles that provide hope and motivation rather than hopelessness and despair.  If a debate between this government and replacing or infusing it with socialism is well informed, I do not see how socialism can possibly win.