Do-Nothings

Do we have another example of political insanity amongst us? Yes, I'm afraid we do, and the phrase I coin for it is the: Do-Nothings.

There is an ill-defined political reactive movement across our nation today that some, particularly so-called Republicans, are harnessing for their own political benefit. At least, they’re harnessing it for the time being, and very loosely at that. For, this reaction actually cuts across the board and is aimed at politicians without regard for their political party affiliation.

The “tea parties” and tax protests are the symptoms we see or experience. I believe that, underlying these events is an undefined fear resulting from the perception that there is no ability to control, or influence, one’s destiny. This movement is against something—anything—and its adherents have no clearer concept of a solution than to roll back time to some unidentified past; some time when things “worked.”

There is little doubt that, had our Founders not declared independence in 1776, the British colonies would have prospered in the emerging Commonwealth and gained independency in the 19^th century. That is, if the abolition of slavery did not cause rebellion in the South in 1833.

The fact that there has never been a time in the history of this nation, or of any other, when many citizens did not feel that things weren’t working to their benefit does not matter.

Political fear, dissent, and protest are the hallmarks of our Republic. Indeed, they are the cause of our Republic.

Have We Lost Our Minds?

Do we think we can receive, and benefit from, services for which we pay nothing? We know that’s impossible. How?

• We want someplace to live—We pay the mortgage or the rent
• We need to eat—We pay for food
• We want to be warm at home, find our way about at night, and bathe (occasionally)—We pay for the utilities we use

I Want My Country Back!

This is probably the major crying slogan of the so-called Tea Party “movement.” So, what are the problems? Basically, there seems to be but one problem:

The majority of those who voted in November, 2008 voted Barack Obama President of the United States.

Oops. You disagree? Let’s look at a comment on an article about the Mail Online⁽¹⁾ entered by a US participant in the September protest rally in Washington, D.C.

“My husband and I drove to Washington on our own dime/time and we joined 1.7 million (“unofficial” crowd size according to park police) concerned Americans who feel that our country’s constitutional freedoms are being taken away due to the govt. takeover of banks, auto dealerships, businesses, etc. and the out-of-control spending. We don’t want govt. by extremist cazrs and we don’t want govt. run health care pushed on us! This is America and the silent citizens are silent no more…we are awake and we are marching! We have been ignored by liberal politicians who are attempting to change this country into a socialistic, entitlement-based citizenry…we have been either ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media, and we have been called racists and uninformed by some…we are none of these. We are simply, but strongly, the modern-day warriors to save this free land that we love. We are Americans!”

It’s unfair to use the comment of a single individual as representative of a whole, but that’s what I’m doing. After all, this movement has no officially defined agenda; most protesters appear to hold similar beliefs. Let’s see…

Loss of Constitutional Freedoms

The movement and its adherents do not—cannot—point to any specific loss of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms by the administration of President Barack Obama.

They shall scream and holler about this assertion, but they can’t point to a single freedom that has been revoked or denied.

The greatest loss of freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution occurred with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in 2001. This legislation was initiated by President George W. Bush and supported by Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate in response to the Al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. There has never been a more egregious assault on personal civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, not since the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, during the administration of President John Adams.

Government Takeovers

The charge that the federal government has taken over “banks, auto dealerships, and businesses” is both specious and false. To a degree, of course.

• The FDIC can, and does, take over banks that fail.
  • They do this to protect those who have accounts with those banks under public law—the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
• Congress, and particularly the Republicans, have attempted to water down or remove the Act almost since its passage (see this FrontLine article).

Do the protesters the federal government to remove this Act entirely and return to the heady days of 1929?

Auto Company Bailouts

To date, no auto dealership has been taken over the federal government. Period.

If so, show me!

Instead, the federal government passed legislation that allowed the Obama administration to bail out the auto makers to save jobs—both Union and non-Union jobs. Perhaps the government should have allowed General Motors and Chrysler to implode into bankruptcy. Of course, the economic implications of that went far beyond Detroit, the companies, and the Unions whose members manufacture vehicles for the companies.

Business Takeovers

To date, I cannot find an example of any business that has been taken over by the federal government.

If so, show me!

Certainly, no insurance or health insurance company has been taken over.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac

If the comment was directed to the federal “take-over” of Fannie Mae…the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are government-sponsored enterprises chartered by the US Congress. The Federal Housing Finance Agency placed both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship because their business practices had led both nearly to collapse. If this had not been done, mortgages guaranteed by either would have been in jeopardy, and new mortgages would not be available, period. The lending situation today is bad enough; the disappearance of these enterprises would have completed the ruin.

Extremist Czars

The President can appoint advisers as he or she sees fit. Advisers are on the staff of the President, and are not subject to Senate confirmation. If so, the Senate would need to confirm the appointment of secretaries, couriers, kitchen staff, and so forth.

Really, what specific things has Obama and his administration, or the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate, done — or attempted to do — to establish socialism in this nation?

Were those Obama appointed to advise him extremist? Glenn Beck thinks so. For me, though, that is not enough. Of course, I thought that Karl Rove was pretty much an extremist, too.

Socialist Change

Does the President want to make the United States a socialist republic? What is socialism? According to Dictionary.com, socialism is:

“…a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole”

So, what has the administration pushed or advocated that will turn the US into a socialist state?

• Federal ownership of the means of production?
  • No bill has been introduced that would eliminate private property, ownership of capital, business enterprises, land, or anything similar
• Federal ownership of the means of distribution?
  • No bill has been introduced that would take over any element of the distribution of capital, land, products, goods, or services

So, where is the socialism?

Entitlement-Based Citizenry

The growth of entitlements is a problem. Perhaps our country would be best served by eliminating some or all entitlements, such as:

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid

Of course, there are other, appropriated, federal entitlement programs, including those related to education. But, when we speak about federal entitlements, we’re really talking about funds disbursed through the mandatory entitlements listed above.

You don’t like these?

• Supplementary Security Income (SSI)
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as Food Stamps
• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

All fall under Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Remember the charge about Death Panels? Go tell your parents or grandparents that you oppose Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid!!

There are other “entitlements,” of course. Such as funds appropriated for veterans’s benefits (the GI Bill, mortgages, health, and so forth). Do you want to eliminate these, too? After all, they are entitlements.

Of course, you can personally help reduce the impact on citizens and the reach of the federal government:

Refuse to enroll in any federal entitlement program when you’re eligible!

Conclusions?

It’s just so absurd, yet it’s real. These people were silent when the regulatory agencies governing our financial system were scaled back by Republican administrations. They were silent when government established its right to tap their phones and read their e-mail and mail with impunity. They were silent when legislation was passed that allowed the federal government to jail people indefinitely.

But, they shout loudly and in great numbers when an administration seeks to create jobs by expanding a cap-and-trade policy that has been effectively used by Republican administrations in the past. They shout and wail and nash teeth over the administration’s intent to make health insurance more affordable and prohibit insurers from canceling policies at (their) will. And, they bitterly and loudly complain when government steps in to protect jobs throughout the US economy.

Makes sense to me.

⁽¹⁾Mail Online is the Web adjunct to the British Daily Mail.