Options
Print
18 Comments
Post a Comment
Email
Onward Civilian Soldiers
· Sunday, January 29, 2012
WASHINGTON -- War, said James Madison, is "the true nurse of executive aggrandizement." Randolph Bourne, the radical essayist killed by the influenza unleashed by World War I, warned, "War is the health of the state." Hence Barack Obama's State of the Union hymn: Onward civilian soldiers, marching as to war.
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. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lockstep, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer -- this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.
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 can not 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.
In his first inaugural address, FDR demanded "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." He said Americans must "move as a trained and loyal army" with "a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife." The next day, addressing the American Legion, Roosevelt said 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.
Yearnings for a command society were common and respectable then. Commonweal, a magazine for liberal Catholics, said Roosevelt should have "the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government." Walter Lippmann, then America's pre-eminent columnist, said: "A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead." The New York Daily News, then the nation's largest-circulation newspaper, cheerfully editorialized: "A lot of us have been asking for a dictator. Now we have one. ... It is Roosevelt. ... Dictatorship in crises was ancient Rome's best era." The New York Herald Tribune titled an editorial "For Dictatorship if Necessary."
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.
(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Navigation
Subscribe
Author Charles Colson: "The Patriot is a refreshing antidote to the mainstream media establishment, and an invaluable resource for straight thinkers." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Navigation
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
mmccrindle
Not only is Obama taking his agenda strait out of the book "Rules for Radicals", he now follows such notables as Mao, Hitler, Muhammed, Lenin and other assorted vile tyrants who all tried to unite the masses of useful idiots.
I'm not suprised at all since he's really never had an original thought in his head.
He's really not as smart as the MSM would have us believe.
Posted January 29, 2012 at 8:30:27 AM
Howard Last
Don't call Barry (or what ever the hell his real name is) a progressive, he is worse. He is a communist. Does anyone remember a Republican Big Shot (you can't call them leaders) calling Barry a communist?
Posted January 29, 2012 at 12:32:27 PM
Robert
Maybe it's time for Reader Digest to republish
the condensed version of Hayek's "Road To Serfdom".
The left, however, would be unable to see the similarities between this administration and the socialist societies described in the book. Instead, they would probably attibute the all the examples to the Bush administration.
Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:07:50 PM
Sapient
Howard Last
The last thing I really remember a GOP "leader" calling Obama something was John McCain assuring that lady that Obama waa a good, decent, honorable, Christian family man who loved America and the Constitution just like he did.
Well, at least part of that was right. Obama and Mc have a lot in common.
God bless
Thomas Jefferson, "Follow the core principles of the Constitution and the knot will always untie itself."
Posted January 29, 2012 at 3:24:35 PM
Howard Last
Sapient - either McCain is stupid or a liar.
Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:13:57 PM
mmccrindle
Howard Last-
McCain is both, he's proven it working with the likes of Feingold, Kennedy and a bunch of other liberals.
Sad thing is he touts himself as some kind of hero who can work with the democrats.
In reality he caves to their stupid reasoning, always giving up more and more of our liberties.
He should of switched parties years ago.
Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:23:00 PM
Sapient
mmccrindle / Howard Last
John McCain was offered some pretty hefty bonuses if he would switch to the Dems...and truly considered it so I understand.
He does not reach across the aisle...he has a seat over there. He can snatch defeat from the jaws of sure victory, and always for them for some reason.
While, as a VN vet, I may admire what he did as a POW, but that does not excuse what he has done to this nation since then. Benedict Arnold was a hero too, right up to the time he was caught working for the enemy.
There were lots of VN vets who also served honorably and did not do as he did so I do not hesitate taking him to task for it....
And neither should anyone else.
God bless
Posted January 29, 2012 at 6:45:11 PM
Adrien Nash
I want to say a big Amen to George's expose. What a disturbing revelation about our previous fearless fascist leaders. It's a keeper of an essay which will serve as a reminder of where we've been in our history, and where we may end up if we are not vigilant. I've just recently finished writing a call to all patriots to make a stink for the Constitution and oppose "The Tyranny of Good Intentions" it's on my blog, -here's one paragraph:
"We need people who will be like the gas that is added to propane in order to be a warning that there's a dangerous leak. Without that stinking warning gas, a fatal condition will develop because the danger will go unseen, unnoticed, and un-smelled until it's too late. The gas that is escaping is analogous to Fidelity to our local, state, and national controlling Laws. When all the "gas" has escaped and the tank is empty, we'll be left with the Tyranny of Good Intentions. Its overlords will distort, dismiss, misinterpret, and ignore our most fundamental laws,-laws meant to protect us from Big Government's intrusion into our social and private lives. The Tyranny of Good Intentions will be like a noose around our necks. It's tolerable somewhat as long as you don't struggle, but get out of line and you'll suffer serious consequences."
It concluded with: "Let your motto be this: "I have a voice and I'm going to use it regardless of your Constitution-abusing socialism-loving attempt to silent, distort, and bastardize the Truth!"
Read the full composition here: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-tyranny-of-good-intentions/
Posted January 29, 2012 at 11:57:20 PM
Adrien Nash
Allow me to add one supporting observation. What those Progressive Presidents and liberal media elites dreamed of was the ideal of a strong unity of purpose, unseen until WWII, and the willingness to work close together in unison. That's what they would have wanted to see, and would have required of each and every free American individual, like it or not, if they had been given the power to suspend the Constitution, which they would have gladly done if possible. They cared not about individual liberty nor State's Rights because in their insidious dream world, the ends justify the means. Like the former head of SEIU (the international Union organization) "If we can't prevail by the power of persuasion then we'll use the persuasion of power." They're idealists outwardly but are fascists at heart. But unfortunately for them, there is no provision in the Constitution to suspend it, or else they would have invoked it long ago and over and over.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 12:20:29 AM
mmccrindle
@ Robert-
The Herotage Foundation has a condensed version of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".
I pass them out.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 9:17:57 AM
Sapient
mmccrindle
Heritage also has some great materials in their "First Principle" section.
Not the least of these is "How to Read the Federalist Papers."
Its OUTSTANDING. Might consider adding it to your "gift" list.
God bless
"The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interests can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787
Posted January 30, 2012 at 9:33:31 AM
Sapient
Adrien Nash
In a political cartoon recently, the king was making promises of free this, and free that, and jobs. Some on in the crowd astutely asked:
"If we get all this stuff for free, what do we need jobs for?"
Great question. The answer is the hidden secret of liberalism:
"Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
That would be none other than Karl Marx.
Funny, they don't tell their useful idiots about that one...until later.
Samuel Adams, without today's knowledge, said that the Founders had done everything possible to make the ideas of socialism and communism unconstitutional.
The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership] are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." From 'The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams', 3 volumes. Little, Brown and Company.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 1:41:21 PM
brhamlin
In my impatience with the "I am your savior from yourself; trust me" attitude that too many government EO'S express, I too dream that all executives of all governments will someday say, "I will let my people go; their collective wisdom is far greater than any knowledge that I will ever have."
I also fear the day on which that might actually happen.
Hamlet comes to mind here.
And thus we yet recover from all recent wars, hot and cold.
Even so, a news item that headlines as "POTUS, COTUS, announce two year hiatus in new laws. God Bless," would be welcomed.
There comes a time when the cessation of unremitting governmental novelty is in itself a worthwhile governmental accomplishment.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:10:06 PM
pete
My years in service were the closest to communism I ever want to get. Promotion by favoritism, dispersion of chores by favoritism, everything belongs to everybody - unless you are a favorite. Equality with some being more equal than others. For any leader, especially one who has never "lowered" him/her self to serve in our military, has no business banging war drums. We heard it every day from the lying-azz media about Bush, but not a word has yet been said about this dummy.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:21:44 PM
Sapient
Adrien Nash
Re: Tyranny of Good Intentions
How about this one for your quote collection:
Daniel Webster - “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power … it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
And note that he says "it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people from the dangers of good intentions."
The question is..."But whose good intentions are we being protected from?"
The elite that's who. Those who believe they are above the law and who view the rest of us with condescension...
Wanna know who to vote out? Just find out who voted to exempt congress from the laws it passes.
God bless
"Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:35:23 PM
Pat
What are we doing? Are we taking Hitler's blueprint? This sounds like Nazi Germany. I hear a Gestapo clone is in the making now, in secret. God have mercy on us.
Posted January 30, 2012 at 5:34:49 PM
Robert A. Hall
Indeed. I’ve been surprised that the Occupy movement didn’t get better organized by issuing the faithful shirts of the same color, so they could identify each other. Brown is nice, doesn’t show dirt or rat droppings. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.
Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
All royalties go to help wounded veterans
For a free PDF of my book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com
Posted January 31, 2012 at 11:30:49 AM
Peter
This is an essay about fascism, not socialism/communism. I'm glad that several posters observed this. It is true that the two are in many ways similar, and neither is a friend of individualism, the rule of law or liberty. The current president is only the most recent, and not the most effective, high priest of the statist religion best described as fascism. Do you really think BHO has done more damage than Wilson, Roosevelt or Johnson?
Posted February 1, 2012 at 5:24:08 PM