Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposed a budget with extensive cuts to all sectors receiving pay-outs from the state, including veterans.
Those who serve this country deserve the best treatment possible. The Federal Government cannot do that.
Any state agency will falter under its inherent power to force revenue and dispense with it without accountability.
Consider the fate of the Walter Reed Hospital, an medical facility which fell into long-term neglect and disrepair, where medical personnel were reusing medical instruments without even sterilizing them! Government (mis)management provided a corrupt facility for men and women who deserve much better.
Then there is the lack of security. The fallout from the Fort Hoos Massacre alone should be enough to review the current security which veterans enjoy when undergoing medical care.
Besides, is it in any person's best health interests to receive unending benefits from the state? Have we not reconciled ourselves to the fact that after extensive health-care provision, unending handouts simply create unhealthful dependence on the government? Why should any veteran be forced to expect a well-deserved reward from an institution which routinely fails to pay its own bills?
Veterans deserve all the care possible to facilitate their integration back into civilian care. They deserve respect for the sacrifices which they have made for this country. Yet would it not be better if U.S. Veterans received block grants, a permanent tax write-off, or another emolument which will enhance their independence from the state, and relieve future tax-payers from onerous and ultimately wasteful financial obligations? Veterans deserve the best care. To ensure that they do receive what they deserve, they should be allowed to choose where they meet their medical needs. An open marketplace would permit this, as opposed to limiting veterans to VA facilities which do not have to compete and do not undergo adequate scrutiny to improve overall care for their patients, unlike private hospitals throughout the country.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Big Government isn't Working
This is not the end of the world, everyone. Nations in Europe are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The United States cannot resolve its debt debate, failing to raise the debt ceiling
If markets do correct, as French Economist Frederic Bastiat calmly asserted, then this is the most massive and necessary market correction in human history.
For two hundred years, national governments have instituted large entitlement programs and the horrendous debt which they incur in order to consolidate power. European states purchased the agreement of rural and conservative interests in their lands by offering state subsidies and handouts, like social security, if they would relinquish ancient land ties and local autonomies.
Recently, political parties have bought votes by promising to take from the wealthy and pass out the legally ill-gotten largess out to the growing base of tax-exempt citizens. Government has insidiously colluded with public workers to offer handsome perks and exorbitant benefits on the public dime. No one complains when it is not their specific dime getting pilfered, yet when everyone collectively suffers under the timely failure of wealth distribution, the people of a nation protest.
This Big Government model was bound to be unsustainable, no was bound to unsustainability. Those with money get tired of being forced to lose their wealth to those who have done nothing, slowly entrapped in the wicked entitlement mentality that only demands more. As sources of independent wealth dry up or drive away, the state depends on tricky accounting, subtle tax increases, and ultimately extensive borrowing. These dysfunctional maneuvers only drown the state in deeper obligations, steeper paying plans, and ultimately bankruptcy.
What does a state do when it cannot pay its bills? Will municipalities declare war on their own communities and attempt to seize from so impoverished that they cannot provide for themselves? If individual tax-payer are bled dry, what hope do state and federal agencies have?
There is no escape from the one grand conclusions pressing on liberal, conservative, and undeclared: Big Government isn't working. It cannot function. It cannot sustain itself. From overtaxed citizens to crippled national governments, everyone is learning the hard way that depending on a growing government to meet the needs of the future was a foolhardy gamble from the beginning. Banking on the state to honor its obligations because by law the state is obligated to pay up no matter how dire the economic conditions--that is simply a ludicrous, hollow threat when there is no money to spend, no resources to print currency, and no buyers willing to settle for promises to pay later.
Big Government isn't working. No longer will conservatives demand change through emotional and moral appeal. Dragging stocks, falling revenues, slowing growth, the vast mistrust between borrower and lender, all sound the death knell of the Big Government Behemoth.
If markets do correct, as French Economist Frederic Bastiat calmly asserted, then this is the most massive and necessary market correction in human history.
For two hundred years, national governments have instituted large entitlement programs and the horrendous debt which they incur in order to consolidate power. European states purchased the agreement of rural and conservative interests in their lands by offering state subsidies and handouts, like social security, if they would relinquish ancient land ties and local autonomies.
Recently, political parties have bought votes by promising to take from the wealthy and pass out the legally ill-gotten largess out to the growing base of tax-exempt citizens. Government has insidiously colluded with public workers to offer handsome perks and exorbitant benefits on the public dime. No one complains when it is not their specific dime getting pilfered, yet when everyone collectively suffers under the timely failure of wealth distribution, the people of a nation protest.
This Big Government model was bound to be unsustainable, no was bound to unsustainability. Those with money get tired of being forced to lose their wealth to those who have done nothing, slowly entrapped in the wicked entitlement mentality that only demands more. As sources of independent wealth dry up or drive away, the state depends on tricky accounting, subtle tax increases, and ultimately extensive borrowing. These dysfunctional maneuvers only drown the state in deeper obligations, steeper paying plans, and ultimately bankruptcy.
What does a state do when it cannot pay its bills? Will municipalities declare war on their own communities and attempt to seize from so impoverished that they cannot provide for themselves? If individual tax-payer are bled dry, what hope do state and federal agencies have?
There is no escape from the one grand conclusions pressing on liberal, conservative, and undeclared: Big Government isn't working. It cannot function. It cannot sustain itself. From overtaxed citizens to crippled national governments, everyone is learning the hard way that depending on a growing government to meet the needs of the future was a foolhardy gamble from the beginning. Banking on the state to honor its obligations because by law the state is obligated to pay up no matter how dire the economic conditions--that is simply a ludicrous, hollow threat when there is no money to spend, no resources to print currency, and no buyers willing to settle for promises to pay later.
Big Government isn't working. No longer will conservatives demand change through emotional and moral appeal. Dragging stocks, falling revenues, slowing growth, the vast mistrust between borrower and lender, all sound the death knell of the Big Government Behemoth.
Americans Fear Debt Default: Wrong Sentiment, Wrong Idea
As Congress continues to be unable to pass a comprehensive budget with necessary cuts and revenue increases, the American people seem to fear: What will happen if the nation defaults on its debt?
Economists have guessed. Senators have scolded. People still pace in fear.
Legislators are calling the President's bluff. Even if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, they argue, the United States is still obligated to pay certain bills, like social security. By law the government must pass out certain handouts, no questions asked.
So Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. . .what will happened?
Government will simply have to live within its means. Just as households across the country are cutting spending because they do not take in as much revenue as before, so local, state, and federal agencies must bear the responsible burden of letting go of pet projects, meandering entitlement programs, and the incessant hemorrhaging of resources which is undermining this nation.
If the politicians were not willing to make the cost-cutting decisions before, now they have no choice. Just like the Government shut-down in 1995 only harmed a few agencies across Washington D.C., a federal government that is unable to pay its bills will only foster more freedom for the millions in this country who have paid their bills and managed their debt.
Rather than living in fear, consumers and creditors in the United States should look forward to a future where less of their money gets sucked up into the Big Government Leviathan. Because this monster is so lethargic and inept, we only have to fear the length of time it will take before the Federal Government begins shutting itself down and being forced into its proper constitutional limits.
Fear not, overburdened tax-payers. If you have invested your time and fortunes properly, you have nothing to fear from other government agencies which have refused to manage their affairs.
Economists have guessed. Senators have scolded. People still pace in fear.
Legislators are calling the President's bluff. Even if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, they argue, the United States is still obligated to pay certain bills, like social security. By law the government must pass out certain handouts, no questions asked.
So Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. . .what will happened?
Government will simply have to live within its means. Just as households across the country are cutting spending because they do not take in as much revenue as before, so local, state, and federal agencies must bear the responsible burden of letting go of pet projects, meandering entitlement programs, and the incessant hemorrhaging of resources which is undermining this nation.
If the politicians were not willing to make the cost-cutting decisions before, now they have no choice. Just like the Government shut-down in 1995 only harmed a few agencies across Washington D.C., a federal government that is unable to pay its bills will only foster more freedom for the millions in this country who have paid their bills and managed their debt.
Rather than living in fear, consumers and creditors in the United States should look forward to a future where less of their money gets sucked up into the Big Government Leviathan. Because this monster is so lethargic and inept, we only have to fear the length of time it will take before the Federal Government begins shutting itself down and being forced into its proper constitutional limits.
Fear not, overburdened tax-payers. If you have invested your time and fortunes properly, you have nothing to fear from other government agencies which have refused to manage their affairs.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Do-Nothing Government: A Welcome Euphemism
Do-Nothing Government: A Welcome Euphemism for "Limited Government".
Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama cannot craft final legislation to raise the debt ceiling. They are still unable to control the unruly elements in their respective parties to agree on certain conditions for the short or long term.
The incessant debate of Congress has angered voters across the country, who had demanded that their legislators do something about the financial crises afflicting this nation. Many of them have decried Washington as a dysfunctional, do-nothing Congress that is wasting our time and patience while flushing billions in tax revenues.
Foolishly, some pundits have elevated bi-partisanship to mythic status, as though every legislator must be dedicated to putting aside his or her "petty ideologies" and cooperate with forming a Grand (albeit "Corrupt") bargain. Yet every time that bi-partisanship mania has deluded both sides of the aisle into passing heedless legislation, it has only concentrated more power in the hands of the federal government and impoverished individuals and local stake-holders. The frenzy over stopping terrorism after 9-11, for example, gave birth to the bloated and corrupt Department of Homeland Security, which has only added to the financial as well as national insecurity plaguing this country. Consider also the chronic, complicit corruption of legislators to sneak in pork and entitlement enhancements to please constituents for easy reelection.
Someone has got to slay this insanity. Bi-partisanship is the very thing bringing down this country. A government that does nothing, even failing to raise the debt ceiling, would accomplish far more for this country than the stop-gap "bi-partisan" measures which have only sucked the life out of this nation's hard-working tax-payers while exploding the growth of "Do-Nothing-By-Doing-Too-Much" federal government.
Congress is finally functioning exactly how it was supposed to. The Framers designed the Federal Government to function only under great deliberation, not duress nor demand. Presidents do not get to force their mandate on an unwilling Congress. Even leaders within both legislative chambers cannot bully their members to follow in lock-step with their national parties' overboard agendas. President Carter, for example, learned the hard way the futility of dictating change to Congress, even when the large majority of Congressmen at the time were fellow Democrats. Newt Gringrich resigned within four years of ascending the House Speakership after failing to fulfill any part of the Contract of America which he had run on in 1994. His repeated attempts to force his Republican colleagues to vote in lock-step with his wishes also contributed to his downfall.
Today, the Tea Party Freshmen frustrating House Speaker Boehner are doing exactly what they were voted into office to do: hold the government accountable for every tax-payer dollar that it spends. If that means not permitting the federal government to raise its debt limit, so be it. If that means the nation defaults on its debt, perhaps the American People will stop expecting the federal government to play by the same rules that they live by when preparing a budget with their finances. Once we rid ourselves of the naivete that the federal government is inherently dysfunctional, we will stop justifying our growing dependence on government control and provision.
Congress by its nature must consider legislation. Emotional initiatives and parochial pressures have no place in the Capitol. We have political parties for a reason, each of which sponsor a differing core version of the nation and the Constitution. These views will never be reconciled, nor should they be. Any government, handicapped by partisan bickering is the very engine of "non-change" which will begin the necessary resurgence of power back to the people. The voters, the tax-payers, deserve a Federal Government which will protect our rights and defend our borders, nothing more.
"A Do-Nothing" Government is a welcome euphemism for the limited government intended by the Framers, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and until recently sorely lacking from the halls of the United States Federal Government.
Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama cannot craft final legislation to raise the debt ceiling. They are still unable to control the unruly elements in their respective parties to agree on certain conditions for the short or long term.
The incessant debate of Congress has angered voters across the country, who had demanded that their legislators do something about the financial crises afflicting this nation. Many of them have decried Washington as a dysfunctional, do-nothing Congress that is wasting our time and patience while flushing billions in tax revenues.
Foolishly, some pundits have elevated bi-partisanship to mythic status, as though every legislator must be dedicated to putting aside his or her "petty ideologies" and cooperate with forming a Grand (albeit "Corrupt") bargain. Yet every time that bi-partisanship mania has deluded both sides of the aisle into passing heedless legislation, it has only concentrated more power in the hands of the federal government and impoverished individuals and local stake-holders. The frenzy over stopping terrorism after 9-11, for example, gave birth to the bloated and corrupt Department of Homeland Security, which has only added to the financial as well as national insecurity plaguing this country. Consider also the chronic, complicit corruption of legislators to sneak in pork and entitlement enhancements to please constituents for easy reelection.
Someone has got to slay this insanity. Bi-partisanship is the very thing bringing down this country. A government that does nothing, even failing to raise the debt ceiling, would accomplish far more for this country than the stop-gap "bi-partisan" measures which have only sucked the life out of this nation's hard-working tax-payers while exploding the growth of "Do-Nothing-By-Doing-Too-Much" federal government.
Congress is finally functioning exactly how it was supposed to. The Framers designed the Federal Government to function only under great deliberation, not duress nor demand. Presidents do not get to force their mandate on an unwilling Congress. Even leaders within both legislative chambers cannot bully their members to follow in lock-step with their national parties' overboard agendas. President Carter, for example, learned the hard way the futility of dictating change to Congress, even when the large majority of Congressmen at the time were fellow Democrats. Newt Gringrich resigned within four years of ascending the House Speakership after failing to fulfill any part of the Contract of America which he had run on in 1994. His repeated attempts to force his Republican colleagues to vote in lock-step with his wishes also contributed to his downfall.
Today, the Tea Party Freshmen frustrating House Speaker Boehner are doing exactly what they were voted into office to do: hold the government accountable for every tax-payer dollar that it spends. If that means not permitting the federal government to raise its debt limit, so be it. If that means the nation defaults on its debt, perhaps the American People will stop expecting the federal government to play by the same rules that they live by when preparing a budget with their finances. Once we rid ourselves of the naivete that the federal government is inherently dysfunctional, we will stop justifying our growing dependence on government control and provision.
Congress by its nature must consider legislation. Emotional initiatives and parochial pressures have no place in the Capitol. We have political parties for a reason, each of which sponsor a differing core version of the nation and the Constitution. These views will never be reconciled, nor should they be. Any government, handicapped by partisan bickering is the very engine of "non-change" which will begin the necessary resurgence of power back to the people. The voters, the tax-payers, deserve a Federal Government which will protect our rights and defend our borders, nothing more.
"A Do-Nothing" Government is a welcome euphemism for the limited government intended by the Framers, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and until recently sorely lacking from the halls of the United States Federal Government.
Debt Ceiling Dance: Gridlock in Lock-Step
In Washington, nothing gets things done like gridlock.
So states the (decidedly conservative) pundits who do not lament the failure of Congress and the President to pass legislation, specifically regarding the debt ceiling.
There are three branches of government for a reason. Congress does not take orders from the President, nor does the President have to follow suit with Congress. For all parties considered, the Supreme Court was never supposed to play a large role in federal or state policy to begin with.
If each branch wants to dance to their own tune, then nothing gets done, no one goes anywhere, and this nation will get back to its roots: limited government with private and local initiatives taking off where the federal government has failed, and should never have stepped in the first place.
So states the (decidedly conservative) pundits who do not lament the failure of Congress and the President to pass legislation, specifically regarding the debt ceiling.
There are three branches of government for a reason. Congress does not take orders from the President, nor does the President have to follow suit with Congress. For all parties considered, the Supreme Court was never supposed to play a large role in federal or state policy to begin with.
If each branch wants to dance to their own tune, then nothing gets done, no one goes anywhere, and this nation will get back to its roots: limited government with private and local initiatives taking off where the federal government has failed, and should never have stepped in the first place.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Debt Ceiling Dance Goes into the Night
The Tea Party is ready to dance all night. House Speaker John Boehner better keep up if he wants to stay in the dance for much longer, or the Tea Party Caucus might motion him to have a seat and let someone else lead the rest of the Republican delegation in the House of Representatives.
The 70+ Freshman know where their allegiance lies: cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. One other goal: cut the nation's credit card, especially in the hands of President Obama and the Washington elites who follow him, Democrat or Republican.
Mr. Boehner, what a toss-up for you. Make some effort to raise the debt ceiling, or risk becoming the sore loser that let the country lapse into default. Yet would it be your fault? You called the President's bluff. Now let him walk off the cliff. Whether bond ratings plummet along with Obama's approval ratings is not your concern. You and your caucus have done what you could. As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie remarked earlier, if the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion, it will be a failure of leadership, specifically from President Obama.
Why not just undo the whole debt ceiling concept for good? It serves no other purpose but to convey to superficial voters that the national government seriously has no interest in spending beyond its means.
Balanced Budget Amendments notwithstanding, when will legislators ever learn. . . someone out there is watching how the money is spent. Where they have followed the money has scandalized this country once and for all. The voters in this nation will no longer sit back and watch politicians pilfer away our future.
In the past superficial and apathetic, the current electorate in the United States is electrified and unified. Stop the spending, stop the spending, stop the spending!
The Tea Party caucus has listened, they are engaged, now the leadership and the opposing party better follow along, or misstep and fall out.
The 70+ Freshman know where their allegiance lies: cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. One other goal: cut the nation's credit card, especially in the hands of President Obama and the Washington elites who follow him, Democrat or Republican.
Mr. Boehner, what a toss-up for you. Make some effort to raise the debt ceiling, or risk becoming the sore loser that let the country lapse into default. Yet would it be your fault? You called the President's bluff. Now let him walk off the cliff. Whether bond ratings plummet along with Obama's approval ratings is not your concern. You and your caucus have done what you could. As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie remarked earlier, if the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion, it will be a failure of leadership, specifically from President Obama.
Why not just undo the whole debt ceiling concept for good? It serves no other purpose but to convey to superficial voters that the national government seriously has no interest in spending beyond its means.
Balanced Budget Amendments notwithstanding, when will legislators ever learn. . . someone out there is watching how the money is spent. Where they have followed the money has scandalized this country once and for all. The voters in this nation will no longer sit back and watch politicians pilfer away our future.
In the past superficial and apathetic, the current electorate in the United States is electrified and unified. Stop the spending, stop the spending, stop the spending!
The Tea Party caucus has listened, they are engaged, now the leadership and the opposing party better follow along, or misstep and fall out.
Fan or Follower (. . .)
Jesus Christ: the name inspires.
So much to say, so much to wonder about, so much to consider.
Who is this guy? What does he mean to me? Why should I care?
Someone you call on when you accidentally stub your toe or hit your finger?
Someone whose name you whisper when things are going well?
Someone whose name you cry out when things go from bad to worse.
Some name you sing out in church once a while, then forget about when you go back to struggling through your six-days-a-week shuffle?
Or is He the name above all names? The one and the only, the Alpha and Omega?
Do you follow him from a distance, or do you strive to walk with him?
Do you care what he thinks, or have you given up caring what he thinks, no matter what happens?
The fans, close or far away, like the guy. They even get along with the whole "God-became-a-man" routine. Yet they are not committed to him when the going gets tough.
The followers, they stick it through. They also follow him, some from a distance at the outset, so unworthy to even be near him. Others follow close by, but then just when they think that they are able to catch up with Him, Jesus seems to have outstripped them once again.
The fans are content to sit by and watch, even to cheer once and a while.
The followers, they go to every game, they watch, they help out, they cheer him on, they even practice the moves. When they fail to measure up to the Master, they get discouraged and fall back. Some followers, so moved by his power and game, don't even try. So disgusted with their inability, they just give up altogether, resigning themselves to being feckless fans or faithless opponents.
Fans never try. Followers try and fail. No matter what, it seems, Jesus Christ, the Carpenter of Nazareth, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is just out of everyone's league. A great leader, a great speaker, a great teacher, too great to be around.
At least, so it seems.
Besides fans and followers, is there some other way to the Way? Can His name indicated more than nice guy, glowing example, stern pattern, and impossible standard to meet?
So much to say, so much to wonder about, so much to consider.
Who is this guy? What does he mean to me? Why should I care?
Someone you call on when you accidentally stub your toe or hit your finger?
Someone whose name you whisper when things are going well?
Someone whose name you cry out when things go from bad to worse.
Some name you sing out in church once a while, then forget about when you go back to struggling through your six-days-a-week shuffle?
Or is He the name above all names? The one and the only, the Alpha and Omega?
Do you follow him from a distance, or do you strive to walk with him?
Do you care what he thinks, or have you given up caring what he thinks, no matter what happens?
The fans, close or far away, like the guy. They even get along with the whole "God-became-a-man" routine. Yet they are not committed to him when the going gets tough.
The followers, they stick it through. They also follow him, some from a distance at the outset, so unworthy to even be near him. Others follow close by, but then just when they think that they are able to catch up with Him, Jesus seems to have outstripped them once again.
The fans are content to sit by and watch, even to cheer once and a while.
The followers, they go to every game, they watch, they help out, they cheer him on, they even practice the moves. When they fail to measure up to the Master, they get discouraged and fall back. Some followers, so moved by his power and game, don't even try. So disgusted with their inability, they just give up altogether, resigning themselves to being feckless fans or faithless opponents.
Fans never try. Followers try and fail. No matter what, it seems, Jesus Christ, the Carpenter of Nazareth, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is just out of everyone's league. A great leader, a great speaker, a great teacher, too great to be around.
At least, so it seems.
Besides fans and followers, is there some other way to the Way? Can His name indicated more than nice guy, glowing example, stern pattern, and impossible standard to meet?
Bush 43's Second Inaugural Address: A Further Consideration
"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."-- President George W. Bush
From a speech crammed with lofty hopes, noble sentiment, and vague entreaties, this bold pronouncement became the central doctrine of the conservative neocon cabal. According to President Bush, in order to safeguard the United States, this nation would commit itself to making democracy safe in other parts of the world.
That notion has been debunked for two reasons:
1) Because of the rampant growth in state spending, much of it due to poorly-planned and terribly-managed nation-building, the United States Government is teetering on default. A nation which cannot pay its own bills has no business advocating or lecturing other states on democratic principles, especially when these efforts have less than respectable results.
2) Arab States throughout the Middle East and superficial democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa are stumbling over massive protests, all without the aid or instigation of the United States. Uprisings have toppled stable dictators, long upheld by the United States Government. Our policy of cautious, selective infiltration of democracy has been irrevocably exposed.
The United States needs to be committed to its own interests without imperilling or impinging on the rights of other nations. If we stick to maintaining our own freedom in the face of growing global unrest, we will be better off all around.
"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world". This notion is fuzzy at best, if not permanently faulty. Even if one nation wanted to export democratic principles and foster liberty elsewhere, it has to be chosen. How one nation defines liberty may jar completely with that of the United States.
Let us not focus so much on exporting freedom and democracy far beyond our coasts, but build it up here. If we leave well enough alone abroad, other nations will contend with their internal unrest. Their fate, for better or for worse, lies ultimately in their hands. We must content ourselves with not contending, not micromanaging, not attempting to determine the course of political history for diverse countries and unique peoples around the world.
If nothing else, this nation will cease inadvertently setting off animosity with the rest of the world. At least that cold comfort is better than the expensive interventions which have escalated tensions and unrest across the Middle East.
From a speech crammed with lofty hopes, noble sentiment, and vague entreaties, this bold pronouncement became the central doctrine of the conservative neocon cabal. According to President Bush, in order to safeguard the United States, this nation would commit itself to making democracy safe in other parts of the world.
That notion has been debunked for two reasons:
1) Because of the rampant growth in state spending, much of it due to poorly-planned and terribly-managed nation-building, the United States Government is teetering on default. A nation which cannot pay its own bills has no business advocating or lecturing other states on democratic principles, especially when these efforts have less than respectable results.
2) Arab States throughout the Middle East and superficial democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa are stumbling over massive protests, all without the aid or instigation of the United States. Uprisings have toppled stable dictators, long upheld by the United States Government. Our policy of cautious, selective infiltration of democracy has been irrevocably exposed.
The United States needs to be committed to its own interests without imperilling or impinging on the rights of other nations. If we stick to maintaining our own freedom in the face of growing global unrest, we will be better off all around.
"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world". This notion is fuzzy at best, if not permanently faulty. Even if one nation wanted to export democratic principles and foster liberty elsewhere, it has to be chosen. How one nation defines liberty may jar completely with that of the United States.
Let us not focus so much on exporting freedom and democracy far beyond our coasts, but build it up here. If we leave well enough alone abroad, other nations will contend with their internal unrest. Their fate, for better or for worse, lies ultimately in their hands. We must content ourselves with not contending, not micromanaging, not attempting to determine the course of political history for diverse countries and unique peoples around the world.
If nothing else, this nation will cease inadvertently setting off animosity with the rest of the world. At least that cold comfort is better than the expensive interventions which have escalated tensions and unrest across the Middle East.
Later Reflection: The War in Iraq, and Freedom in the Middle East, with Frequent Reference to President George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Adress
Nation building, advancing the cause of Democracy.
All of it was sweeping fun. President Bush's bold declaration:
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
What a noble sentiment. Reading it against makes me tear up.Yet what were we willing to set ourselves up for? By standing for liberty, does that including maintaining a long-term occupying force in nations where the native populations would look on the Americans as encroaching invaders? Consider these lofty hopes of Bush 43:
"The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause."
How considerable is our influence, exactly? As of now, the Middle East is embroiled in Revolution from Tunisia to Syria, with Iran likely waiting in the wings. The United States did not instigate this change, yet for years the United States government supported "stable" dictators who supported a policy that tolerated Israel and beat back Al-Qaeda militants.
It would seem, sadly, that our policy of bringing freedom to the Middle East was inevitably handicapped from the start. Start with another noble declaration in President George W. Bush's second inaugural address:
"America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty."
Yet for years the United States Government for years supported "grudging concessions" for dictators who harassed their own people, irrespective of class, race, or religion. Their blanket persecution was more tolerable to the U.S. Government's foreign policy agenda than securing those rights of "free dissent and participation of the governed."
Now that Arabs throughout the Middle East are clamoring for those same rights, they want to marginalize opposition parties and minority groups. They wish to alienate and isolate Israel, the only liberal democracy in the regime. Iraq, with its troubled parliament, insisted on European model of government which has produced nothing but protracted stalemates and while exacerbating ethnic rivalries, none of which existed before the 2003 invasion.
What has all the United States' Armed Forced blood and treasure accomplished for the desperate nations of the Middle East? For the United States?
Free elections do not a free society make. The world is witnessing the congenial vision of flourishing democratic regimes in the Middle East devolve into a corrupt, violent nightmare. And legislators from both parties insist on plunging our already-depleted resources into this widespread quagmire.
If we really want to promote freedom, protect our borders, and help secure the blessing of liberty for others, the United States needs to concentrate on upholding the Premises of the Preamble to the Constitution for our own people.
"Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self"--President Bush should have turned this trope to managing the affairs of this country with an eye towards balancing the budget and preserving our posterity for future generations.
If we can maintain our glorious shine like a city on a hill instead of letting the imploding dysfunction of government growth ruin our gleam, then our example and our culture may in turn inspire oppressed people to rise up against their leaders and demand freedom for themselves, a sentiment which even President Bush alluded to:
"Liberty will come to those who love it."
In all truth, we can stand with all the oppressed and politically persecuted peoples of the world by advancing our own causes first. Free markets make free people. Free nations have chosen freedom and all the challenges that come with implementing it for all people. But let's abandon the notion that this nation can impose freedom on any other nation. That is simply contrary to the very nature of freedom itself.
All of it was sweeping fun. President Bush's bold declaration:
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
What a noble sentiment. Reading it against makes me tear up.Yet what were we willing to set ourselves up for? By standing for liberty, does that including maintaining a long-term occupying force in nations where the native populations would look on the Americans as encroaching invaders? Consider these lofty hopes of Bush 43:
"The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause."
How considerable is our influence, exactly? As of now, the Middle East is embroiled in Revolution from Tunisia to Syria, with Iran likely waiting in the wings. The United States did not instigate this change, yet for years the United States government supported "stable" dictators who supported a policy that tolerated Israel and beat back Al-Qaeda militants.
It would seem, sadly, that our policy of bringing freedom to the Middle East was inevitably handicapped from the start. Start with another noble declaration in President George W. Bush's second inaugural address:
"America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty."
Yet for years the United States Government for years supported "grudging concessions" for dictators who harassed their own people, irrespective of class, race, or religion. Their blanket persecution was more tolerable to the U.S. Government's foreign policy agenda than securing those rights of "free dissent and participation of the governed."
Now that Arabs throughout the Middle East are clamoring for those same rights, they want to marginalize opposition parties and minority groups. They wish to alienate and isolate Israel, the only liberal democracy in the regime. Iraq, with its troubled parliament, insisted on European model of government which has produced nothing but protracted stalemates and while exacerbating ethnic rivalries, none of which existed before the 2003 invasion.
What has all the United States' Armed Forced blood and treasure accomplished for the desperate nations of the Middle East? For the United States?
Free elections do not a free society make. The world is witnessing the congenial vision of flourishing democratic regimes in the Middle East devolve into a corrupt, violent nightmare. And legislators from both parties insist on plunging our already-depleted resources into this widespread quagmire.
If we really want to promote freedom, protect our borders, and help secure the blessing of liberty for others, the United States needs to concentrate on upholding the Premises of the Preamble to the Constitution for our own people.
"Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self"--President Bush should have turned this trope to managing the affairs of this country with an eye towards balancing the budget and preserving our posterity for future generations.
If we can maintain our glorious shine like a city on a hill instead of letting the imploding dysfunction of government growth ruin our gleam, then our example and our culture may in turn inspire oppressed people to rise up against their leaders and demand freedom for themselves, a sentiment which even President Bush alluded to:
"Liberty will come to those who love it."
In all truth, we can stand with all the oppressed and politically persecuted peoples of the world by advancing our own causes first. Free markets make free people. Free nations have chosen freedom and all the challenges that come with implementing it for all people. But let's abandon the notion that this nation can impose freedom on any other nation. That is simply contrary to the very nature of freedom itself.
Military Build-Up or Jazz: The Cause of Soviet Disintegration
New Historians are questioning whether Ronald Reagan's military build-up was the catalyst which brought down the Soviet Union. One historian, Thaddeus Russell, claims that the infiltration of American popular culture accomplished far more to bring down the Soviet Union than than the exponential growth of military spending. After World War II, American Soldiers brought jazz to Eastern Europe, which then made its way to the Soviet Union. Dance music made people want to tap into their sensual side. Popular art makes people want to express themselves, a naturally subversive trend which totalitarian regimes loathe.
If popular culture trumped military spending, then most die-hard Reaganites have some major soul-searching to do in their quest for the 2012 Presidential Candidate. Yes, Ronald Reagan cut taxes; yes he lower tax rates across the board to spur economic growth, but was the huge uptick in defense spending necessary, or justified? There seems less evidence supporting the excessive funding into the military-industrial complex, especially in the wake of a burgeoning nation debt which is crippling this nation's future.
Rand Paul, the outspoken Tea-Party Senator from Kentucky has scolded both Democrats and Republicans for outrageous spending, attacking the left for wasteful spending on domestic programs, but targeting the right for unjustified apportionment's to the military and defense. With the new insight of more recent historians, it would appear the Rand Paul's concerns are more than justified.
If popular culture trumped military spending, then most die-hard Reaganites have some major soul-searching to do in their quest for the 2012 Presidential Candidate. Yes, Ronald Reagan cut taxes; yes he lower tax rates across the board to spur economic growth, but was the huge uptick in defense spending necessary, or justified? There seems less evidence supporting the excessive funding into the military-industrial complex, especially in the wake of a burgeoning nation debt which is crippling this nation's future.
Rand Paul, the outspoken Tea-Party Senator from Kentucky has scolded both Democrats and Republicans for outrageous spending, attacking the left for wasteful spending on domestic programs, but targeting the right for unjustified apportionment's to the military and defense. With the new insight of more recent historians, it would appear the Rand Paul's concerns are more than justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)