Democracy Ain't All It's Cracked Up To Be

In the midst of our current orgiastic paroxysm of vitriolic fervor over "history in the making" and (to quote the SF Chronicle,) seeing the coming of the "Jackie Robinson of politics," the Geek has to say, "Bah. Humbug."

Pace the recent pap from the current incumbent of the Oval, democracy is not what has made the US a great country. If George W. Bush wants complete refutation of his paean to the glories of elections he need look no further then himself.

The American style of democracy has tossed up some great leaders. Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Truman all come to mind. The country has survived, even flourished through the administrations of many, many lesser sorts. Names such as Harrison, Fillmore, Buchanan (no, not Patrick), Cleveland, Taft, Harding, Clinton and oh so many others are to be found on that list.

We have flirted with disaster when the elections tossed up men such as Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, and H. W. Bush. We have even muddled our way through the overstretched ambitions of such as Lydon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

George W. Bush occupies a special niche, a unique place in the results of democracy. With W. We the People managed to twice put a one man disaster area into the Oval. Never before has the electoral process produced such a result.

The manipulations of political operators and the skills of image creators convinced enough of us to put a man of such overweening arrogance and ineptitude into office. We were cozened in sufficient numbers to elevate a mediocre governor of a state where the term "hardball" is way too soft to describe the nature of the political game to the presidency.

No sooner were the votes (including those of the Supreme Court) counted then he surrounded himself with a coterie of ideologically driven cretins. The combined effect of W. and his neocon ninnie crew has been to plunge the world into economic chaos and involve our country in two unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged wars.

As if that wasn't enough the bunch went on to warp the powers of the Executive Branch so as to make it a clear and present danger to each and every one of us. Finally, the current administration has sought successfully to distort the relation of government and business to a point which uncannily resembles the corporate state of the fascist countries of seventy years ago.

Admittedly, the numbers show that most of us had nothing to do with the debacle. We either voted for the other guy or we sat on our hands. Still, all of us are and will continue to pay the price for the sins of a minority.

We the People ought to get a grip on that reality.

This is important since from all the signs of MSM and pollsters alike we are about to do it again. We are about to admit through our votes that the spinners of image and the weavers of (specious) truth have manipulated our myths and emotions. We seem on the verge of electing an ideologue without experience but with both great ambition and a powerful commitment to a particular social/economic/political worldview and agenda.

The man, of course, is the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

From his mentors and advisers, speeches and votes we know that Senator Obama is, in European terms, a Left Socialist. We also know that the senator has little, if any, knowledge of how international affairs and national security policy might best be formulated and conducted.

In a real sense, the Obama embrace of the Left Socialist view of economic and social justice bothers the Geek less than his intellectual bankruptcy in foreign affairs. The reason for this is simple. The Republican, Senator McCain is a Right Socialist.

In American political terms both the Right and Left Socialists along with the "Center Socialists" of both parties are the descendants of the most pervasive and arguably pernicious political doctrine in US history--Progressive Interventionists. (Interventionist in this context does not mean intervening in the affairs of other countries but rather the direct intervening by government into the personal decision making of the individual citizen.)

Interventionist Progressivism arose from the late 19th Century Progressive movement. Progressivism was (and is) inherently elitist. But, the interventionist form outstrips its progenitor.

The progressives believed sincerely that the government could and should operate in a way such that the quality of life for each individual citizen would be improved materially, intellectually and even spiritually. At first, the belief expressed itself through emphasizing the role of government in regulating the worst abuses of corporate economic power and providing expert instruction to the individual in how to live better, healthier, more fulfilling lives.

When it became apparent that while government regulation could provide some admittedly limited benefits in the quality of individuals' lives, the educational orientation had failed. People kept making poor choices, bad decisions and suffering the consequences.

The interventionist progressive program emerged in fits and starts from just before World War I over the next three quarters of a century. The interventionist belief was and is that government must act directly upon the citizen to ensure that he cannot make bad choices, bad decisions and suffer the consequences.

Another, more recent term of British origin which epitomises the goal of the interventionist progressive perfectly is "Nanny State." Senator Obama is dedicated to the Nanny State both in principle and in practice.

That scares the Geek more than the harsh metallic click unexpectedly heard in the thick bush deep in hostile territory ever did. The Geek could take action to protect himself against the bullets which would shortly follow the metallic click. He (and you) can do little if anything to counter the threat of the all-embracing, warm, protecting (and stifling) arms of the Nanny State.

Senator Obama, in common with all interventionist progressives, undoubtedly is of the view that J.S. Mills' definition of state coercion being limited to the protection of the individual from direct, material and substantial harm resulting from actions of another is hopelessly outdated. Reactionary horse-and-buggy thinking.

They are, of course, wrong from a historical perspective in maintaining that limited government is bad government. This is every bit as anti-historical and anti-reality as George W. Bush's hosanna to democracy.

What brought America greatness both in the past and the present has been the willingness to take risks, and to learn from failures. To learn from experience and profit from what has been learned. To pursue happiness without the let or hindrance of government provided only that one's pursuit did not directly, substantially and materially harm another.

Exacerbating the ideological toxin of the current brand of interventionist progressivism is its affection for High Minded ideals such as ending global poverty or talking without preconditions with people who believe that they are absolutely in the right to stone thirteen year old rape victims and kill for "honor."

To enter the mindset of the High Minded, the True Believers in cultural and moral relativism, one must be a member of the elite. The High Minded True Believer cannot concern him or herself with the mundane realities which preoccupy the hoi polloi. To be a High Minded True Believer one must place one's self in some sort of perverted Platonic universe where the abstract is important and the grubby realities of the world and its peoples irrelevant.

Senator Obama's statements as well as those of so many of his most vocal supporters show a remarkable unwillingness or inability to live in the world of real people. In this respect the Senator and his ilk are joined shoulder and hip with their ideological opponents of the current administration.

Neither Obama nor Bush are able or willing to take the world and people as both actually are. Obama, like Bush, insists upon imposing an absolutely rigid ideological framework upon the lives and works of humanity in all its varied and opposing forms.

Bush spelled disaster because of this reality.

Obama in the Oval will do the same. For the same reason. Ideology over all else.

Get a grip on that.