Reich: “In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.”

Conservative policies don’t demand that only the fittest survive, and efforts to save the less fit reinforce the moral fiber of society. That’s one of the reasons we support the unborn. That’s the reason we give to charities. We believe there is an inherent value in human life, and that we have a responsibility to do what we can to see that even those less fortunate have the opportunity to realize their potential, whatever that may be. We believe that this is best achieved through the private, voluntary actions of individuals, not through the coercive power of the state.  Having the state usurp this responsibility is not only less efficient, it eliminates the necessary interaction of caring, involved individuals so essential to affecting outcomes.

“Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed and keeps them from taking available jobs.”

I have no issue with unemployment insurance, other than I don’t have a choice. The supposed paragons of choice don’t allow one. We have Homeowner’s/renter’s insurance, life insurance, car insurance, and for a couple more years, health insurance, all provided by the free market. But unemployment insurance can only be handled by the state?

” Finally, like Hoover and Mellon, Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.

This defies economic logic. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses aren’t investing and exports can’t possibly fill the gap, and when state governments are slashing their budgets, the federal government has to spend more. Otherwise, the Great Recession will turn into exactly what Hoover and Mellon ushered in — a seemingly endless Great Depression.

It’s also cruel. Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty.

So the answer to decades of overspending by the federal government is to continue overspending? Talk about defying logic. Government can only spend what it takes from its citizens. And the Obama regime is overspending on steroids. The US used to be an export driven economy, but thanks to overzealous taxation and regulation, the only things we export now are jobs.  And cruel? How is it compassionate to foist crushing debt on future generations?  How is it compassionate to devalue savings by “monetizing” this debt? My children and grandchildren will never come close to paying off the debt Reich and his ilk -in both parties- have run up, if we continue down the path Reich advocates.  The Democrats like to talk about the “failed policies of the past”.  What about the failed policies of the present? We can afford to waste $700 billion on a stimulus in a single year, but we can’t afford to let those that earn the money keep $700 billion over the next 10 years?  Where is the “economic logic” in that?

All of this is an excellent argument for term limits. And yes, I realize that this might leave professional bureaucrats ostensibly in charge. All the more reason to have a limited government. A government of elected officials that are civic-minded and not seeking to become career politicos. A government that doesn’t think the answer to every problem requires more spending. Or emanates from Washington D.C.

I see that CNN’s David Gergen writes today in “Mr. President, take command” that he is unhappy with the efforts of BP and the government, and wants to have President Obama take command of the efforts to stop the oil flowing into the gulf. But Gergen pines for something that President Obama is incapable of doing: taking charge.

While Obama is described by some as an effective organizer, lecturer, teacher, and politician, he was never credibly described, in my opinion, as an effective leader. He is not, and never has been, a chief executive. The closest thing to a CEO that Obama has ever been was “running” his own Presidential campaign. It’s a bit of a paradox to say that his best qualification for being elected to run the Federal government was the fact that he was campaigning for the job. His is a resume long on schooling, and short on appropriate experience.

Like many liberals, Obama can summon all the proper emotion, on cue if necessary. He is “angry and frustrated”, and sees the failure to plug the well “as enraging as it is heartbreaking”. All a wonderful range of likely very sincere emotions. But what is it that is really missing? Action. The President, for all his rhetorical flourishes that try to cement his emotions with those of the people, consistently falls short in one area: action.

The problem is that Obama has no idea how to go about doing what needs to be done. This is why, when he faced off with Republicans after his inauguration, he responded to their suggestions with “I won”. Yes, you did, but now you must lead!  He farmed out the responsibility for his stimulus and healthcare ideas to the Democrat congress, not because he wanted to remain above the fray, but because he had no idea how to lead on these issues. Obama castigates BP for its malfeasance, and lambasts federal regulators as if they were some indifferent third party. Look, if Bush owns 9/11 only nine months after his inauguration, why would you believe that someone else is responsible for the federal bureaucracy 16 months after you take the helm? A real leader understands that those they work with will make mistakes. The leader must work to keep those mistakes few in number, minimal in scope, and continue to inspire and motivate after such mistakes inevitably occur, while teaching and disciplining where necessary to reduce the chance for those mistakes to occur again.

And really, the country does not expect Obama to dive down and seal the well himself. We do not expect the President to invent a new technology on-the-spot that will close off the flow of oil, or corral the square miles of oil slicks, and make them disappear. But we do expect the President to gather the best and brightest minds available, see what solutions are out there, and get to implementing them. It’s not enough to say that you’re in charge, and the buck stops here. The federal government has untold assets to focus on the problem; bring them to bear where it will help. If we can’t stop the oil flow until August, then forthrightly say that’s the most likely course of action, and that there ought to be several things that can be done to mitigate the mess while we wait. A true leader is not content to be stymied by the current course of events. He seeks the way around obstacles in his path, and determines how his actions can be brought to influence events, not the other way around.

Like many, I expected Obama to fail, even wished for it.  But I didn’t expect a failure this spectacular.  There’s a lesson in this:  Be careful what you wish for.

A confluence of posts has caused me to write this diary. I am astounded and somewhat chastened that I only now really understand the wisdom behind a philosophy I learned long ago in college: namely, that our entire American Experiment rests on 4 little boxes.

The first box is the one we all treasure here at Red State so much: The Soap Box. In our country, at least at present, it is possible to have your say without fear of reprisals from government. (Nighttwister’s blog entry not withstanding ) The expression of one’s opinions in public leads, as it ought, to debates and discussions. Sound opinions, based on reason, logic, and virtue generally prevail, and the ability of those who dissent from prevailing orthodoxy to present their opinions, unimpeded by government, acts as both a safety valve to relieve the burden of perceived injustice, and as a prod to all participants to both think through issues and positions, and refrain from impeding the free exchange of ideas.

And now that we’ve all had our say, it’s time to take this to the second of those boxes: The Ballot Box. This is where the majority rules, but the majority must always respect the rights of the minority. The idea is that having run the gauntlet of The Soap Box, only the best and most essential ideas will emerge to make it to the ballot box. The same goes for those involved in the legislative process, although as has always been the case, talented orators can conceal their true motives and ideals and occasionally prevail. It is for this reason that the founders of this nation structured the government in such a fashion as to make the process of change slow and deliberate. Otherwise, a handful of talented orators may be empowered, and do lasting damage to the republic. Because this box is foundational to the republic, you would think that the penalties for cheating or gaming the Ballot Box would be severe. Best to beware of those talented orators that eschew integrity of the Ballot Box on specious grounds, for it may be the case that they and their minions derive benefits in an inverse proportion to the Ballot Box’s integrity.

It is integrity that strives to make itself plain when we come to the third box: The Jury Box. It is here that average citizens are charged with judging the actions and intents of those accused of damaging others, breaching the peace, or breaching contracts. Virtually all who serve take the responsibility seriously, to deal with the law and the facts as they are presented, and to make determinations that deprive other citizens of money, property, freedom, or even life. Occasionally, juries may hear the evidence, read the law, and determine that irrespective of the direction a verdict should be rendered, they may find in the opposite direction. This is known as Jury Nullification, and legislators ignore these types of rulings at great peril. Juries rarely make such determinations; if they do, it is a message to the legislators that there is a basic unfairness in the writing or application of the law. Too much offending the sensibilities of the people leads to the last of the four boxes…

The Ammo Box. Although most of us would prefer to leave The Ammo Box in the closet, gathering dust, not seeing the light of day, The Ammo Box exists as both deterrent and offensive weapon. (Note to all liberals, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. The intent is to keep the government in its proper place, and to remind the government who is really in charge. Although governments possess well equipped armies, they are very reluctant to open fire on their fellow citizens.) The Ammo Box exists, at least at present, to remind government that the people retain the power “…, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” And also “…that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The Ammo Box is not to be trifled with, for it means business whenever it appears. Care needs to be exercised in the dealings with all other boxes, for although rarely used, The Ammo Box backs up each and is the sturdiest of all. Additionally, it contains within itself an additional box that is best left alone. That is the box of Pandora.

And so fellow denizens, we must rise whenever necessary in support of The Four Boxes of the Republic, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Our posterity will be thankful that we did nothing less.

Unknown to most of the country, the Supreme Court of these United States has already injected itself into the healthcare debate… way back in the early 1970’s.  Fortunately for the court, several years earlier it was discovered, that somewhere under the penumbras, and a little to the left of and somewhere slightly behind the emanations of the Constitution,  there was a right to privacy.  This discovery was leveraged by the court in the early 1970’s to include a nearly unfettered right to a particular medical procedure.  This procedure was called abortion.  Those on the left celebrated the “right” to “terminate” an unborn child.  A woman’s choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor.  They had rallies, chanted slogans, and waved signs.  They exercised their new-found “right” loud and long, for they were certain that they knew better than everyone else that their way was truly well and just.  It had to be, the Supreme Court had said so.  The court had expansively interpreted their liberty to do as they pleased.  And so they did.  Millions of times.

And now, it is the 21st Century.  Yes, we still hear those on the left celebrating.  They control all the levers of National Political Power.  And once again, they have determined that they know better than the rest of us.  Not content with merely having the right to determine the healthcare for unborn children, they want to determine healthcare for everyone.  They don’t say it like that, exactly.  They prefer the term “single-payer”.  Or perhaps, “Healthcare Co-Op”, or “Public Option”, the latter being single-payer on the installment plan.  Of course, they have no intention of consulting the Constitution, with it’s now-enshrined  right to privacy.  Because it is possible, just possible, that somewhere else under the penumbras, and a little to the right and slightly behind the emanations, lay the seeds of the destruction of their single-payer hopes and dreams.

And so, speaking for millions who never got the chance to speak, and speaking for millions who are denied the opportunity to be heard by their cowardly elected representatives, and speaking for the millions who want nothing more from their government than to be left largely alone, we hereby officially purloin your famous slogan:

Keep your laws off my body!

I want no part of your healthcare system that operates with all the customer friendliness of the IRS, the cost-conciousness of the Pentagon, and the timeliness of  Huricane Katrina relief.

Keep your laws off my body!

I want no part of a system that seeks to confiscate the labor of doctors and nurses, and the equipment and infrastructure of hospitals and clinics, to be re-distributed in a manner that bureaucrats deem most politically expedient.

Keep your laws off my body!

I want a system that respects my choice of medical care as a private decision between me and my doctor. I want a system that expands my liberty, expands my choices, and doesn’t require forced contributions from others to pay for my care.  I don’t want a system that reduces my options to whatever a bureaucrat will allow, or fines me if I choose to carry no health care insurance at all.  And I don’t want a system that seeks to eliminate private charity and philanthropy.  The donation of personal time by health care workers, and personal funds by those who can easily (and often not so easily!) afford it has made the American health care system the best in the world.  Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Assuming, of course,  that you actually chose to deliver your baby.

There was a time, some months ago, when Hillary Clinton screeched that we had the …“right to debate or disagree with any administration!” But I see the day coming, in a fashion similar to Michael Barone, where criticism of The One will not be allowed. It is already “racist!” to disagree with Candidate Obama. And if you can’t criticize Candidate Obama, how on earth will you be allowed to criticize President Obama? The answer of course is that you can won’t. Will Hillary Clinton ride to the defense of those with differing views? Not likely. Does anyone out there actually believe that if Obama were to be elected President, all the grievance mongers and race-card dealers will stop and pronounce the end of racism? That America will be finally and fully healed? Of course not. Those taking positions against Obama will be tarred and feathered as racist, at least initially. Never mind that those of us with genuine disagreements with Obama over his policies and experience (who did he work for as a “Community Organizer” anyway?) would like to be heard. We’ll all be racists, you see, and they may have to shut down that hate-filled talk radio that keeps egging us on, so that they can spare the rest of the populace from our “hate-filled rhetoric”.

When Michelle Obama told us :

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed”.

That was the mask slipping off. This is but a short list of the things that Barack will not allow, especially the going –back-to-your-lives-as-usual part. This brings to mind a particular scene from the movie “When Harry Met Sally”, wherein Sally vividly re-enacts her ability to fake it. Except this time, it’ll be real. The new movie is “When Harry Met Nancy”. With margins in the Senate and the House that will allow the passage of whatever Harry & Nancy want, it will be liberalism on parade, with Nancy squealing with delight after the passage of each previously-only-dreamt-of bill. And unfortunately for Obama, he will no longer be able to take each side of the fence on every issue; he will actually have to do something. Sign or don’t sign. Support or don’t support. Harry and Nancy will lead him in whatever direction they choose, which is mostly whatever direction Nancy chooses. He will gather an actual record, and it might even be subject to public scrutiny (Well, not by the MSM). If he supports a bill and you oppose it, you’re a racist, or not enlightened, or a member of the VRWC. Or all of the above. It won’t really matter.

Liberals have already been practicing the art of squelching debate and disagreement for years on college campuses, in public discourse, and so on. The transition to squelching debate on President Obama would be a natural progression. If Obama were to become President, he’ll likely have the highest approval rating of any President, ever.

No other situation could possibly be allowed.