Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”
Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics.
Yeah... anyone else creeped out by the head of the military wishing the rest of the country acted like the military? Including his political rivals?
Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America’s political parties “are like armies without officers.” The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America’s founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances — the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government — because it makes a government that cannot be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.
Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about “the three-horse team of the American system”: “If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed.” And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR’s attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.
Limited government and checks and balances? Can't do that if it gets in the way of progress!
That section is followed by "Roosevelt [saying] it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty." And contemporary examples of the Media gleefully cheering dictatorship.
Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an “elegant, academically approved” plan without “legislative fingerprints on it” but “unfortunately” he had to conduct “negotiations with a lot of different people.” His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.
“We can’t wait!” exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies “czars” to further nullify the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.
Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
Again, we see the idea of more state power and removing dissident as all being a virtue. Provided that "the right" people are in charge. Which is of a part with yesterday's post.
And here's another example of waxing poetic about militarization of the federal goverment.
And by pure coincidence the very people that point to the Military as a shining example of all that is right with the government, and that say the goverment is already too small, find the military as the one and only area that can be cut.
George Will's article via Andy at Ace of Spades
Whether they're fetishizing China, attempting to reorder society to combat fictitious global warming or taking over the healthcare system, rest assured that when you cut through their high-minded bullshit, the heart of a petty tyrant beats in every "progressive".
By pure coincidence Mr. A demands socializing Healthcare by saying we have a Socialized Military (among other services) and that the military and the government can "get things done" and be trusted to do that instead of dick around with profits.
He has also gone on long triads listing all the industries he does not want to have the government take over in a single payer system, but given things like the above those assurances ring a bit hollow.
Especially as this is a man who twice has wished for amendments to the First Amendment. All to remove free speech from political rivals. (Once to make First Amendment exception for entities deemed to not be telling "the truth" and another to ban corporate influence of elections. Unions, approved news outlets, and other cleared advocacy outlets excepted of course).
Such wishing was spurned by complaints that the government has "too many checks and not enough balance." Why yes, he is saying that a powerful executive should take more power and act in spite of congressional resistance in order to serve a greater good.
And that complaints against said power grabs are defacto untruthful and thus should be banned... if only that pesky constitution weren't in the way.
So it seems perfectly natural that his solution to media outlets of a disagreeable political bent is to amend the constitution so that the state can ban them.
The scary part is how uncomprehending he is to how creepy and extreme such ideas are. The sad part is that he is completely uncomprehending of such governmental powers ever being used against him.
As much as he complains about Republicans and their evil, fascistic, racist, hateful ways, he seems perfectly fine with creating a Bureau of Truth (that can strip people and organizations of their fist amendment rights if they are deemed untruthful), and then handing the keys of the BoT to any potential Republican president.
Does he think that the republicans will never regain governmental control?
That they would not use the powers of the BoT to ban free speech (note Mr. A wants the Dems to use it and by his rhetoric should be deathly afraid of the Republicans having it)?
That the BoT's internal bureaucracy will only ban "the right" kinds of free speech in spite of who their nominal boss is?
None of those options are particularly heartening, but are to be expected of someone tho is infatuated with the power of the state.