Nero's New Palace Underway

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, Nero waited for the fire in Rome to subside before starting work on his new palace.  Our American Nero is not as patient.  (See previous discussions here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Why do you say this?

IM:  As challenges to his Obamacare mandates play out, it is becoming obvious that President Obama has already started work on his palace.  But, unlike Nero, Obama is not circumventing the Senate, he uses it as his Palace contractor.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  OK, IM, you’re teasing us.  Give us some details.

IM:  The news cycles are already talking about two federal courts ruling in opposite ways regarding the legality of subsidies for federal versus state exchanges.  The one in Virginia, with a Democrat majority, ruled in favor of the provision.  The District of Columbia (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals, represented by a three-judge panel with two Republicans and one Democrat, ruled against.  Now, Obama will request the full DC court review the decision and update it as deemed appropriate.  The full court has four Republicans and seven Democrats.

AM:  This does not look good.

Old Gadfly:  Until recently, didn’t the DC court have only eight members, four Republican and four Democrat?

IM:  Until last November, yes.

AM:  What happened in November?

IM:  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, unilaterally changed a long-standing rule regarding filibusters and Presidential nominations—commonly referred to as the “nuclear option”.  In other words, he changed the rule to allow nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote, strictly along Party lines. 

Old Gadfly:  This opened the door for three very left leaning judges to stack the court:  Patricia Millett, Cornelia Thayer Livingston “Nina” Pillard, and Robert Leon Wilkins.  Now, legitimate constitutional challenges to laws and rules will be adjudicated through the lens of political ideology.

AM:  You claimed the US Senate is Obama’s palace contractor.  Why do you say this?

IM:  The Republican-controlled House of Representatives have passed over 300 bills that have gone nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Forty of these bills are jobs related.  Since Reid and his fellow Democrat cohort can count on a left-leaning complicit media, they can broadcast a “do nothing Congress” through the media’s bull horn.  A “do nothing Congress” is code for Republican obstructionism, which is happily amplified in the press.  This in turn serves as justification for executive action.  As Obama loves to unabashedly proclaim, if Congress insists on doing nothing, then I have a phone and a pen.

Old Gadfly:  Don’t forget the Democrat and left-leaning media’s success in blaming last fall’s government shutdown on Republicans.

AM:  Yet, in 2010, the majority of American citizens expressed their disapproval of federal overreach by electing a significant majority of Republicans in the House (and reduced the magnitude of the Democrat majority in the Senate).  The bills a Republican-controlled House have already passed reflect the will of the people.  Yet, the Senate defies the will of the people by blocking these bills.  And by Senator Reid not bringing these bills to the floor for an up or down vote, he successfully shields obstructionist Democrats from accountability.

IM:  To whom do you think the Democrats in the Senate owe their allegiance?

AM:  Obama.

Old Gadfly:  Why Obama?

AM:  Obama is a symbol of the progressive movement that believes in a large, central government.  As part of the “sacred state” palace, they have deliberately created a large indentured class of Americans who by choice or through coercion are becoming dependent upon the “benevolent” state.  Less than 50% of Americans pay 100% of taxes.  The majority are now dependent upon government largess.  Does “Obama phones” sound familiar?  The following graphic shows the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force.

Old Gadfly:  Notice the sharp decline began in 2007, the year Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both houses of Congress.  Then, as we know, President Obama took command in 2009.  The implications of this graphic are that more Americans have had to start drawing Social Security benefits earlier than they might otherwise, and millions are having to draw from savings accounts, 401Ks, and IRAs earlier than expected to make ends meet, which does nothing to create wealth.  Combine this dynamic with the increased demand for taxpayer funded subsidies (food stamps, housing, health, income subsidies), the economy cannot keep up with government spending.  This is why for the first time in the history of the United States, public debt now exceeds Gross Domestic Product. 

AM:  And while very subtle, the subliminal message being transmitted to Americans is that Obama is providing for them.  The following ad is from a mortgage company’s internet website.  Check out the verbiage in item 2.

 

IM:  And, as the US and the world burn, Obama is out campaigning for more resources to complete his palace.

Old Gadfly:  Interesting.  I have been doing some polling of Americans: friends, family members, and casual bystanders.  I tell them I am going to ask a question, to not give it a lot of thought, to answer instinctively and honestly:  do you feel ruled or served?

IM:  Is it 50-50?

Old Gadfly:  No.  One hundred percent responded, “ruled.”

AM:  Were they all content to be ruled?

Old Gadfly:  I asked, and all said no.

IM:  If the “sacred state” chooses to really turn on dissenting Americans

AM:  Such as the IRS’s strong-arm censoring of conservative groups?

IM:  Yes, but I’m referring to broader measures such as the law enforcement army within the Department of Homeland Security and even military members within the Department of Defense.  Would fellow government-employed Americans use force on fellow Americans?

AM:  As a former military member, I’d have to say that some government employees prefer the security of their job over protecting liberty for Americans.

IM:  Why do we not see Americans in senior leadership roles in our government speaking out?

AM:  For military members, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88, prohibits contemptuous speech toward the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress.  So, how can senior members speak out?

Old Gadfly:  Is criticism based on an understanding of the Constitution considered contempt?

IM:  Good question.

Old Gadfly:  Members of our armed forces swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  If these members see actions that threaten our Constitution and do nothing, then what good is the oath?  Further, the allegiance expressed in the oath is to the Constitution and the sovereign people it represents, not elected officials or government bureaucracies.  Further, I believe Article 88 presumes honorable character and, as such, is a logical condition for prohibiting contemptuous speech.  But what if the actions are not honorable?  What if actions are in defiance of the will and intent of the people?

IM:  Unfortunately, Gadfly, as you indicated in August 2012, our nation appears to be populated with an increasing faction of Copernican drones.

AM:  Our founding fathers dissented against the dishonorable and tyrannical behavior of King George.  Why would that same sense of honor not be needed today?

Old Gadfly:  It is needed.  Let’s see what kind of heat US Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos receives for his recent, honest criticism.  Are there enough Americans, like General Amos, with the courage to do something about the erection of a “sacred state” palace?      

Will Atlas Shrug?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, we are five days into the government partial shutdown.  The question I have is, “Will Atlas Shrug?”

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Are you referring to Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  In the novel, Atlas was the mythical giant (e.g., innovators, producers, entrepreneurs) who bore the weight of the world on his shoulders.  At one point in the novel, one of the characters asked what Atlas would do when the weight, that is government coerciveness, became too much for the giant to handle.  He answered his own question with “he shrugged.”  Let’s analyze the current political contest based on the theme and implications of Rand’s novel.  What was the central thesis?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Rand described her central thesis as the role of man’s mind in existence.  Pondering the implications of this thesis, I can immediately appreciate the importance of this human capacity to create value, especially in relation to your concern about the growing population of Copernican drones and the dangers of modern grand inquisitors introduced in your conversation, Dry Parched Lips.

IM:  Rand’s novel also emphasized the failures of government coercion, which is the crux of the current gridlock between two political parties.  While willing to fund the rest of the government, one party wants to delay the Obamacare individual mandate for a year.  The other party refuses to agree to a one-year delay of government coercion.  Thus, by not compromising on this one provision, Obama and the progressive caucus have allowed the government to be shutdown.  Eight hundred thousand federal employees have become human instruments in service to a master (to paraphrase Mill’s observation from our last conversation).  In a way, the millions of Americans now confronted with the individual mandate also are human instruments to justify Obama’s epoch achievement—universal healthcare for America, assuming the outcome is better than the system that preceded it. 

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, agreeing to a one-year delay does not deprive individual Americans the freedom to sign up for healthcare insurance through the exchanges.  Apparently, the masses are not allowed to think for themselves; they must be coerced by uncompromising, ideologically-driven political elite.

AM:  The hypocrisy in this refusal to compromise is that other mandates in the law have already been delayed or exempted, in violation of the law, by the President.  So, what we see happening in regard to the shutdown is that one man, with the backing of his political party, is dictating policy.  Dictators dictate; they do not lead.  Leaders promote cooperation and seek win-win solutions.  Unfortunately, the Copernican drones in the progressive media amplify Obama’s bully pulpit dictation by saying:

·         The law is settled . . . even though Obama dictates modifications for selected winners;

·         The law was approved by both houses of Congress . . . even though not a single Republican voted for it;

·         The Supreme Court even supported it . . . by a one-vote majority that advised the individual mandate was constitutional IF it is regarded a tax . . . yet, even after the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama administration refused to acknowledge the mandate is a tax;

·         Obama was reelected so this means he has a mandate to continue to dictate the terms of how and when the “settled” law will be implemented; yet, Obama was reelected (a) with 7.6 million fewer votes than he received in 2008 and (b) by suppressing the vote among Republicans and independents with aggressive negative ads.

·         Obama and his swarm of Copernican drones refuse to acknowledge that Obamacare (and stimulus spending that significantly increased the cost of government) led to a major political shift in the House of Representatives by 64 Republican seats in 2010, notably inspired by Tea Party concerns and voices; yet, there is no progressive media interest in covering the IRS’s major illegal involvement in suppressing the Tea Party voice until it became apparent after the 2012 elections.  I cannot help but wonder how today’s political landscape would look had Americans been exposed to alternative views and arguments between 2010 and 2012.

IM:  These are major arguments, AM.  More people would be aware of them if major news sources attempted balanced reporting and objective analysis.  But, as we know from our own attempts to see how ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other large metropolitan newspapers spin the issues, they are far from balanced or objective.  Did you notice ABC’s approach yesterday?  When I watched the segment (starts on minute 7:20), I saw Alinky’s Rule # 13 in full play—“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”[1] 

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Ayn Rand.  Provide some context for Rand’s thinking.  Did she simply imagine some of the evolving conditions described in Atlas Shrugged?

IM:  No.  Her thinking reflected personal experiences.  Rand was born in Russia.  Her father was a successful pharmacist, who actually built, owned, and operated his own pharmacy business in St. Petersburg until the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 when Lenin-led Bolshevicks confiscated the business.  Rand was 12 at the time.  She came to America eight years later in 1925.  While pursuing her literary dreams in America, Rand also closely observed the totalitarian developments in the land of her birth and childhood, and in Germany and Italy.  She obviously had a clear understanding of how these developments could and did take place.  In Atlas Shrugged, she wrestles with many of these ideas.

Old Gadfly:  Tell me what you think “Atlas” symbolizes in the story.

IM:  I think the mythical character represents a set of individuals characterized by a strong sense of personal responsibility and desire to produce.  The weight of the world represents a range of pursuits and corresponding burdens these individuals choose to endure, such as motherhood, fatherhood, neighbor, various professionals serving others in public service (as true public servants to the people) or producing value and wealth in the private sector, and so forth. 

Old Gadfly:  You described people who willingly take risks and commit their own capital.  They build and produce.  They make the villages and form institutions that promote and protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They serve as presbyters in educating and training successive generations in how to advance real progress through individual liberty, not the imaginary idealism advanced by progressives and their ideology of collective liberty.

AM:  The notion of Atlas shrugging indicates to me that some of those burdens may exceed Atlas’s capacity to endure.  So, he gives up, whether for a while if those burdens become fewer or forever if not.

Old Gadfly:  In the current political contest, who would you say is Atlas?

IM:  I can think of three major groups.  First, Atlas symbolizes those who want the freedom to be personally responsible and to produce.  I include in this group many of the 8 million who have lost their jobs since 2007, when progressives took control of both houses of Congress and kept control of an obstructionist, progressive Senate ever since.  Second, Atlas symbolizes many business owners that want to grow and to hire people to further create wealth but are stifled by the burdens of Obamacare.  Third, Atlas symbolizes good Americans who want to express their views openly without being hatefully called by pejorative labels as racist (perhaps these days the equivalent of the N-word?), homophobe (perhaps these days the equivalent of the F-word?), extremist, terrorist, jihadist, suicide bomber, and so forth.

AM:  We can even put a face on Atlas.  Senator Ted Cruz voiced Atlas’s concerns. 

IM:  John Boehner, as the symbolic leader of the majority of people who have legitimate concerns about Obamacare, symbolizes Atlas, even though he has been labeled a coward by Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

Old Gadfly:  No doubt, many Americans support Obamacare.  They typically highlight keeping children on parents’ policies, coverage for preexisting conditions, no caps on benefits, coverage for millions who were previously uninsured, and so forth.  These are certainly good outcomes. 

AM:  Yet, these same people reject facts and arguments that address unintended consequences.  There is no free lunch in Obamacare. The creators take credit for dubious outcomes, yet, stand to bear absolutely none of the costs stemming from the adverse impacts.  As we have already discussed in the last couple of conversations, the adverse impact of Obamacare may significantly exceed the proclaimed benefits.

Old Gadfly:  Meanwhile, the people watch and wait, hoping for a happy ending.  Will Atlas shrug?

---

[1] Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1972), p. 131.