Click here to go HOME
and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of uptospeedgoforit.com
What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...
Subject: Part IV: The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections
(Wed., January 26, 2011)
(approx. 8045 words, 14 pp.)
A year ends, and a new year begins, and a new Congress...
Is the glass 90% empty or 10% full, and does it really matter?
The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections,
or, that is,...
A strategy for national consensus at last & a possible total traditional values victory
Where things stand forever... It may all hang on this Congress?
Look, what is really the problem with America and even world governments today? They are both moving more and more toward some version of so-called "statism," clearly, with each passing decade, but doing so in opposition to the people and often being rejected outright by the people in large majorities. And this is true whether it is the rejected EU Constitution or the rejected 2008 Congress implementing Obamaís Radical agenda. But, big problem, the Left is not going away, they will be back, again and again, until they succeed in controlling everything in your life or family, work or play, even your breakfast cereal. Or as the Bible says everything in the marketplace as well as everything you say or do, and often even think.
The Left, driven by an un-Godly "hard" or "soft" tyranny...
The Left is almost always driven by an un-Godly so-called "hard tyranny" of the outright Radical or an un-Godly so-called "soft tyranny" of the Liberal, though the Liberal usually sees himself to be religious, compassionate, and loving and so forth, and hence not un-Godly in his own eyes. Objectively, this means the Left, whether Radical or Liberal, is driven (spiritually) by power for themselves it would seem, personally as individuals or as a political party, in running their irrational, unworkable, even destructive, immoral and unjust Leviathan (in violations of peopleís legitimate freedoms, etc.), though they tend to see themselves to be driven by their supposedly "brilliant" but actually faulty ideologies, which they are in a sense driven by intellectually, if not spiritually.
It would appear when one has a bad religion (atheism, Liberalism whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish, Islam, whatever) it is going to reflect itself in some kind of totalitarian state usually with one's self in charge. The Left, both Liberal and Radical, is completely blind to all of this, the Bible says "deceived" by Satan, himself, or his minions, into believing irrational, utter nonsense as "brilliant" and of course self-serving nonsense for their own power and control of everybody and everything.
(You will note the final "beast" Leviathan of bad government, and the final political deception of Satan in Revelation is a totalitarian government that controls everything you do or say, or buy and sell etc. I told you in Part II that this was going somewhere where there was no going back in the realm of the spirit and in all history, and I was not joking, and if you do not get this right you stand to lose your immortal soul, as Jesus said, and I think our Friend and fearless leader was probably pretty right about that.)
The Left does not see 1994 or 2010 as "repudiations"
To make matters even worse, if that is possible, the Left is convinced they are the true fulfillment of all history. This means the Left does not see 1994 or 2010 nor the rejection of the EU Constitution as "repudiations," but merely as "setbacks" on their march to one form of totalitarianism or another (hard or soft) for our "good," of course, with themselves in total control of everything and everybody, again, for our "good," supposedly. Again, this is all not simply un-Christian, though the Liberal loves to use the label "Christian," but rather a rejection of the entire Western heritage and of the two basic questions of Rationality which came out of the Greeks, namely, is something practical and is it moral or right?
You will please notice that both of the two questions of practical and moral are based in (Logos) Rationality. If something is not practical, it is irrational, that is, not-Rational whether of the utopian (welfare) Liberal or egalitarian (totalitarian) Radical, and if it is not moral or just it is also irrational, that is, not-Rational whether of the amoral "compassionate" Liberal or the outright no-values tyrannical Radical.
Christ as Lord of the Nations, Rationality, Kings and Queens
Look, I am not trying to be a wise guy here, but the second Person of the Trinity is Christ, and Christ is Logos Rationality. ("How can this be?" Heís the Son of God, silly.) Hence, if Logos Rationality rules the nations of the world, Christ rules the nations of the world, and hence we rule with Him (just as Revelation says in the Bible) in that Rationality process, that highly desirable, just or moral, workable Rationality process. That is, we rule with Him as "kings" and queens. Is this complicated? I do not think so.
But to have this happen the whole march towards Satanís Leftist all-consuming statism beast, that rules everything you do or think or say, etc. (symbolized by a mark on your doing hand and thinking forehead) must be stopped and "killed." That is the totalitarian state or beast which the non-Rational (that is anti-Christ) Left wishes to construct, whether Liberal or Radical must be "killed" (and that is what Christ is said to do with the saints when he comes).
For the Radical the state is "God" outright (such as in Marx, Dewey, Rorty, Sartre, Alinsky, etc.) and for the Liberal the state is more a de facto "God" since the theological Liberal (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish) no longer has a real God of the Bible but a false "God" of mere oneness, tolerance, unity, etc., incapable of the supernatural or entering into Covenants with mankind at Sinai or at the Cross.
The Left cannot do rational analysis, nor do they seek to, and they are not joking
Please note, this is not all theoretical philosophy nor simply Bible interpretation. It is all as plain as the nose on your face, but in their ideological commitment and blindness the Liberal and Radical often cannot see the nose on their face, and they are not joking, and they are not capable of asking the right two question nor do they desire to, and both the Liberal and Radical (in their atheism or false theism) see the only alternative to their totalitarian (control every aspect of your life) statism to be the "no government" at all of the radical Libertarian.
And this false humanist dichotomy is identical to the humanist false extremes of personal morality where they see the two extremes to be all pleasure is good of the hedonist or no pleasure is good of the ascetic, or the false extremes of altruism and selfishness with no legitimate or moral self interest in the harmonious parts of the Body. Common sense Rationality tells you this is nutty for both the state and personal morality and individual interest in politics, economics or otherwise, but the Liberal and Radical have lost their common sense Rationality, and they think this amoral analysis of the humanist (as Paul says in Romans 1 & 2) is "brilliant"!
The point of the good State is good laws, rules, and regulations...
Obviously for common sense Rationality some pleasures are good and some pleasures are bad. (Duh?) And the question is then which pleasures are good and which pleasures are bad and off you go with Solomonís proverbs and with Socrates questions, and with Aristotleís ethics where true self-interest is the moral as also in Socrates and Plato, and with Ciceroís pragmatic philosophy, limited by the moral, etc.
And for the state the question is not choosing between the totalitarianism of the Liberal and Radical on the one hand and the total anarchy of the Libertarian on the other, rather the question is what laws are good laws for regulating the just or moral or desirable interaction of the parts of the Body, and determining which interests are legitimate in the Body politic or economy and which are not, and this requires a will (or heart) and a wisdom to this ends by actual legislators making actual laws, and this is the reign of Christ or, that is, Rationality for a nation and potentially all the nations of the world.
This is all extremely practical, but it cannot be done by the Liberal and Radical nor the Libertarian because all three of these positions have rejected the two basic questions of life (needed to make good laws) for false all government/ no government, ideological, irrational, loss-of-common-sense nonsense because the Liberal, Radical, and Libertarianism have all 3 thrown out the Natural Revelation reality of God and His moral good, again, as Paul says in Romans 1 &2.
Bringing this home to the 2008 Congress and to today, and the reign of Christ...
So, it would seem good government works in an open process but also asks the right two questions within that process, both of which were completely ignored by the 2008 Congress as they did their closed-door midnight meetings and legislation that pursued an irrational, unworkable, undesirable Leftist statist agenda with payoffs to special interest group constituencies thinking no one in the nation would notice or mind! No problem!
In my personal opinion the 2008 Congress was a gift from God to America to show us what 50 years of irrational, misguided Liberalism can culminate in in order to awaken the American people to slay the Liberal to Radical Leviathan state and replace it by open Rational government based on the right two questions of, "Does it work?" And, "Is it right?"
Of course, the ultimate point is the reign of Christ in the Kingdom Era...
Of course, the ultimate point of the reign of Christ in the Kingdom Era is the reign of Rationality in spirit and truth in all areas of life not just in Bible Christianity as the one true, Rational religion but also the reign of Rationality in government, in particular. Why? The second Person of the Trinity is Rationality itself. This is not complicated for the big picture of all history, but this still leaves the actual doing of the reign of Christ in government in the air a bit, does it not?
I, this writer, personally am a philosopher teacher, and I am happy being a philosophy teacher. We all have a calling in life and being a philosophy teacher is mine. Not complicated. I say this because I do not know, nor do I claim to know, the practical nuts and bolts of the legislative process. As always all I know on such matters is what I read in the newspapers, and it isn't pretty.
The 2008 Democrat Congress, unprecedented outrages?
From what I read in the newspapers, what is clear to me (and reportedly in one poll 87% of the American people) is on the whole the legislative process in America has degenerated into closed-door midnight meetings, creating massive bills that are voted into the law of the land before anyone has even read them, even the people the voting for them!
And, further, they are thousands of pages of legalese that no one can understand including the people voting for them, and with countless loopholes and exemptions for friends of the party in power, and the bills have what seem to be open-ended authority given to some executive agency or bureau to do whatever it damn well pleases, in order to enact the open-ended legislation. Arguably the Stimulus Bill, the Omnibus Bill, the Healthcare Bill and the Financial Reform Bill (of the Democrat 2008 Congress) took this all to a new qualitatively more corrupt level, that we have never seen before, but regardless this process has, it seems, grown increasingly worse and more complicated and secretive over the last 50 to 60 years.
Arguably, if all of the secrecy and deal making could produce good legislation, then wonderful. Then we should do more of it! Look, if you are going to be a Total Radical Screw-up, as the 2008 Democrat Congress, and write terrible laws that cause 60% of the nation to rise up in unprecedented revolt, why not screw-up out in the open? Secret, midnight, closed-door meetings writing legislation that no has read nor can read is unbelievably outrageous especially after a central 2008 promise of Obama and the Democrats was to have an open process, and to have laws that not only the legislature could read before being voting on, but the media and the American people could read as well, if you imagine such a thing.
Praise God, allís well that ends well...
In my personal opinion the 2008 Congress was the most dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent legislative body ever assembled in one place in the entire history of our republic and even mankind on earth. And I do not say this lightly, but name any other legislature in the entire history of mankind that has come anywhere close to the levels of lying, corruption, and incompetence we saw in the 2008 Congress, but, praise God, the 2008 Congress was ultimately for the good in Godís sovereign will in that it was a catalyst for 80 to 90% of the American people to want something else just in terms of process, let alone actual results.
There are two separate issues: process and results...
All of this is why I have proposed open, rational, substantive House hearings on matters of importance for the nation and certainly matters of importance to be resolved before for any actual legislation is passed. For example, as we saw last time, before a cap and trade bill can even be considered, one must resolve once and for all if there is actually manmade global warming by carbon dioxide, or what the probabilities of that are, etc.
I do not mean to be unkind, but it seems to me to do as the 2008 House did, you have to be either a blithering fool not to be able to see this, or the most corrupt group of politicians ever to walk the face of the earth, and neither prospect is really very pleasant to contemplate, but this is extremely serious stuff, if you have even a passing interest in the well-being of our great nation, which clearly after the 2008 Congress we must conclude the Democrat Party does not have any longer, tragically (because of their ideological commitments to Liberalism and Radicalism presumably), and so now also say the overwhelming majority of the American people.
But this is just the process not the substance issue. It seems to me if we do not have serious, open, Rational, two right questions House hearings on legislative and other matters that interested people and the media can understand and follow, our democracy is toast? But maybe there is another way to do things besides House hearings on some given issue or topic or piece of legislation, I do not know. I am not a legislator.
Is there another way besides House hearings? I donít know, is there?.
In "the old days" of America, Rome and frequently today in Britain legislators hash things out and sometimes slug them out on the floor of legislature. Maybe this is one way to go as well, but many issues are too complicated for some given politician to stand up and pontificate, and many issues actually call for rational discussion and inquiry rather than mere political posturing, etc.
I used to get up as I recall at weird hours of the night just to watch Tony Blair debate important issues in Parliament (I assumed live) because he was so gifted at that process. I do not think he was as witty as Churchill, but he was so quick on his feet and had clear and well formulated rebuttals and counters to people, seemingly off the top of his head. This is like being a Michael Jordan or something, it is not an easy thing to do.
But, still, it seems to me the hashing out and fact gathering required for writing actual legislation are not very compatible with classic legislative floor type exchanges and debates. It is serious work to do rational, substantive analysis of issues that good legislation requires. Further, the whole House can be too large to do this, and the whole House can only consider one issue at a time, obviously, whereas committees and hearings can specialize, and do numerous issues at once in different committee hearings, etc.
As Reagan, Cicero, Lewis, Gross, Aristotle and Plato argued...
This is all why I suggested open House committee hearings on important issues for the republic and legislation. Simple enough. But this is just one question, the process. The BIG question when having open hearings on writing legislation or doing pass-in-review oversight (of government agencies, laws, and programs of the past 50 or 60 years) is, Is the House going to ask the classic right two questions of the rational traditional values person (Does it work and is it moral, right or good) or the classic wrong two questions of the irrational Liberal and Radical (Is something simply ideologically or politically correct or simply in my interest or groupís interest?)
This decision as Reagan, Cicero, Lewis, Gross, Aristotle and Plato argued is where any person or government or republic can get off track, and it is where this our republic has gotten increasingly of track over the past 50 or 60 years, and it is where the republic will stand or fall in the future for generations to come. Serious stuff here, obviously. And, further, as a mere philosopher, not actual legislator, I personally have no idea what one will find specifically when one opens up any given can of worms on some given piece of legislation, or any issue or agency of the past 50 or 60 years, and starts looking around in terms of the right two questions (presumably starting with healthcare and the financial reform packages?).
Maybe some bad stuff, maybe a lot of bad stuff, maybe no bad stuff at all, who knows? That is what the process is to determine and determine by asking the right two question and variations on them and not the wrong two questions and variations on them. The point is in the bigger picture to re-structure government with clear statements of purpose that would then allow for Congressional oversight, pass in review, etc. Again, a clear example of poorly constructed government, which is in the news all the time doing apparently pretty nutty and heavy handed stuff that it was never intended to do is the EPA, seemingly reveling in its Leviathan status which is not and cannot be controlled by Congress any longer? Generally speaking, government needs to address real problems, with real solutions and real statements of purpose, or one gets opened-ended authority with little or no accountability?
Re-constructing Government with clear Statements of Purpose
I used to live in a town where the police cars had on their doors "to serve and protect" or something like that. I used to think to myself I am glad somebody around here knows what they are doing! The truth is almost all businesses and even structured activities have implicit and often even explicit statements of purpose. "To make the finest cars in the world" or whatever. What are we doing, and why are we in existence, etc.?
What is the purpose of this program, law, agency and what are the limits on what it can do in its executive authority? I think, at least it is my suspicion, we have created enormous agencies and programs with no clear statements of purpose and opened-ended authority to do whatever they please, and nothing specific enough to determine (in legislative review) if they are succeeding in their task to improve education or have a clean environment or determine who gets what rationed healthcare or if we have won or lost the war on poverty or stopped "discrimination" or whatever. It would seem agencies need a, b, c and d (period) type statements of purpose?
It seems to me you cannot have opened-agencies...
It seems to me you cannot have opened-agencies. "To protect and serve" is presumably too broad for an agency, though no doubt the police should do those two things, just as "improve education" or "clean the environment" is too broad a statement of purpose because these things can mean anything, and hence give open-ended authority. Look, clearly something is structurally wrong with Liberal entitlement Welfare State even before it went into the Radical executive absolutism of Obama-ism made possible by the enabling 2008 Congress.
Again, for example it is widely reported in the news that the EPA has gotten way weird, irrational, etc. Why? There are only two possibilities? It has a foolish open-ended charter to clean the environment, or it is in complete violation of its chartered specified purpose? I would bet it is the first. Either one is not good, and either one is an appropriate object of House hearings with the ultimate goal of restructuring it by asking the right two questions, etc., in order to limit its authority and make it specifically accountable. Why? Countless news reports say the EPA is dysfunctional and abusive. Is it? I do not know; all I know is what I read in the newspaper, but the House has a Constitutional responsibility to find out, does it not?
There is pollution, and there is pollution? And who does a law apply to anyway?
Carbon dioxide may the worst thing to ever happen on this planet, but technically it is not "pollution" as we would normally define the word? Who should decide what is "pollution" to be regulated? The courts, the executive branch, or the legislative branch? Seems pretty clear to me the legislative branch, but the legislative branch has it would appear given open-ended authority to Obama, the current executive branch, to name virtually anything as "pollution" or disruptive to the environment, etc. and regulate it with the full force of the U. S. government. Or who is to administers healthcare throughout the nation as they see fit? Obama, personally, under Obamacare. Or who applies new laws as they see fit? Obama, personally. These 25 companies do not have to obey some given massive new law, if they do not want to, "friends of Obama," etc. More and more open-ended absolute power is being given to the executive branch and on a whole new level with Obama and the 2008 Congress.
By contrast, utopian (who cares if it works) and (amoral) "compassionate" Liberals usually have foolish, misguided, well-intentioned programs more than absolute executive power programs. For example, we could set up a "we all ought to be nice to each other" program, but how much money could the government spend on that? An endless amount of money? And you would probably never solve the problem and probably never know how much impact you are having for all the money you are spending. Some things it is not at all clear to me government ought to be doing or even trying to do, although the general goal of being nice to each other may be wonderful. Many things can be just ill-conceived especially if you start with irrational, Liberal utopian assumptions and goals. Or other things can be a good idea poorly administered?
School lunches? Wonderful, good food at a good price.
School lunches? Wonderful. Good food at a good price. We had outstanding (I think subsidized) school lunch programs in the 1950s and 1960s. Good wholesome well-rounded meals. I know I used to eat them, often, if not always. I even had a good friend whose mother was a school nutritionist, believe it or not, even back in those days! But we went to school not to eat but to go to class. Today, we seem to go to school not to learn but to eat? All I know is what I read in the newspapers. Learning is not going so well in many schools, and some schools get breakfast, mid-morning snack, lunch, mid-afternoon snack, and even dinner! Why?
Because the Left has held for 50 years that poor test scores are due to insufficient food for the children. (Obama even makes this specific argument in one of his books.) So, now many children are said to eat 4 or 5 times a day at school, but they still have poor test scores, and now they have a well-publicized obesity problem as well! The solution? Tofu and bean sprouts 5 times a day! What could be more obvious! Test scores will sky rocket now! The road to hell is paved with good intentions? After 50 years of ever increasing quantities of food, can we now say that food was not the cause of poor test scores? We might solve both problems of learning and obesity, if we spent less time eating and more time with better learning? Just a thought.
In the Liberal Welfare State there is not only a "free lunch" for all but "free candy"
In the Liberal entitlement Welfare State there is not only a "free lunch" for all, but "free candy"! Look, I am not for starving the kids, obviously, but we seem to have shifted from seeing the purpose of school to be to feed minds to feeding stomachs. So much so that we have created an obesity problem among Americaís youth, and as is often said in the newspapers the number one health issue with Americaís "poor" generally is also obesity. Too many "free lunches"?
I was in a store recently with a huge set of candy shelves with signs all over it "use your SNAP card for this," or something like that. Obviously good for candy manufacturers but not necessarily SNAP users themselves nor the people footing the bill out of the goodness of their hearts, and because the law of the land demands it! (The candy bar entitlement?)
I personally do not know what to do for good legislation
I personally do not know what to do for good legislation (laws, rules and regulations) off the top of my head, and I do not think there is "one way" to do everything, and if there is I do not think I have it. For example, my school day in high school was a 10 minute homeroom, three 55 minute classes with 5 minutes between to change classes followed by a 30 minute lunch, and then three more hour classes. In 6 hours and 45 minutes we were in and out. As I recall we pulled this off (quite well in fact) without much if any help from Washington DC, hard as that may be for some to believe today.
I think some of the younger kids got one snack break because of a funny lunch hour, due to limited cafeteria space; I donít recall, but all in all the system worked fine. Is there a better way to do it? I donít know and I do not care. It is not my problem. I am not a legislator nor school administrator. But casual observation shows we are not setting up schools, government, agencies, programs, etc. with clear, good, workable attainable goals and with clear desirable regulation for the just interaction of the parts of the Body. And we are not going to until we start asking the right two questions about things, and not the wrong two questions of the ideology of statism and/ or of utopian "compassion" and/ or interest group special considerations otherwise known as payoffs and corruption (and all these wrong questions are the signature of Obama and the 2008 Congress, now say the vast majority of the American people).
Is not this process of good law making the very purpose of the House?
In many ways good law making, and government construction, and oversight (by pass in review or otherwise) is what the House exists for Constitutionally, is it not? Again Senator Coburn or his staff obviously spends hours and hours studying bills and programs, but in reality he is often just some single (moral pragmatic) Senator giving his personal opinion about things. By contrast, if there are massive "pass-in-review" or "is-this-working" or "working-as-designed" or even "needed" House hearings this technical Coburn type analysis can be done to whatever extent seems effective or necessary, and as an official function of the United States government itself, and of course it will require thousands and thousands of hours of staff work and presumably divvying up the massive tasks between appropriate committees, etc., etc.
A person with true legislative ability and a heart for it, really gets into this sort of stuff. Personally I do not, though I do find it very interesting at times. I am more like Reagan or even Obama on this. I am more comfortable sticking with the bigger or actually foundational philosophical ideas, in my spare time such that it is, between horseback riding or golf games or whatever, and leaving the actual "work" of reconstructing government now or in 2012 and beyond to others! Still, there is a crucially important relationship between philosophical theory and governmental practice and actual law making, and Plato, Aristotle and Cicero all understood this complex relationship between philosophical principles and actual law. But Plato screwed it up big time, famously. His ideal Republic was a total disaster!
Still, Plato, Aristotle to a degree, and certainly Cicero understood there were principles of good government but also specific laws, rules and regulations to be written and enacted for the well-being of the nation. Both Plato and Cicero first wrote a Republic on theory, as it were, then their books of actual Laws followed. I am not presuming to write laws here. I am sticking with open process and rational principle, and not a closed-door, midnight-meetings and un-read law process with faulty, irrational, ideological principle and interest group payoffs of our current Liberal to Radical Leviathan of the last 50 to 60 years, and especially last 2 years.
In the long run everything needs to be reviewed if not re-done?
Basically the goal in the long run is to review the entire structure (or as much as seems appropriate) of Federal government programs, policies, agencies, etc., (and even poorly ill-conceived legislation) that have been cobbled together over the last 50 or 60 years, and that are clearly not working well at this time, (as almost all but the most harden Liberals and Radicals now agree), and review everything by asking the right two question or variations on them, and then come to a massive set of substantive actual recommendations for re-structuring much (not all, of course) of the Federal government, as Carter and Gore only dreamed of doing, and being as specific as possible or as seems appropriate or prudent, etc.
Then what? The Republicans play "all or nothing" by putting various recommendations on the table in 2012 or at least the idea of Rational government (as opposed to faulty, unworkable, ideological, interest group government), and the American people vote it "up" with the Republicans or "down" with the Democrats, that is, if in 2012 there are any irrational, ideological Liberals and Radicals still left in America, or even mere interest group folks. (In this regard the actual re-doing of the healthcare and financial reform bills in an open Rational right 2 questions process could serve as a model of such a larger process?)
Will and wisdom to good laws, rules, and regulations will not go away...
The fact is this process of reviewing things and making proposals is actually somewhat complicated, and one must not only have a will (that is, heart) for it, but a wisdom to do it, both of which are too often lacking these days in our legislatures or otherwise, though both come in particular with Christian salvation with the indwelling spirit of Truth and a new heart to God or His Good. In any case, the whole process and particular recommendations must be done right or, that, is wisely, and it must avoid irrational, superficial, ideological bluster, which the Liberal Left and Libertarian Right are so prone to with their "all government" or "no government" and at times just flat nutty "ideological irrational government" extremes. This stuff is not merely "theoretical"!
As an example of the last "nutty government" extreme, I have seen and heard of cases where an entire large dam project was blocked by Liberal nutty environmentalists simply because the pristine beauty and state of nature would be changed, and the landscape in the virtual wilderness would be marred by a manmade object etc. And these people actually got the dam project blocked by the Federal government according to the accounts I saw where the nutty Leftís activities were hailed as an actual legislative victory, no less!
And the no-government Libertarian conservatives can be just as extreme and undesirable ideologically speaking. I have known many Libertarian conservatives who opposed TVA on principle simply because the government was doing it! And they opposed the Post Office as well of course. Obviously these sorts of people of various extremes of the Left and Right are not ready, willing or able to participate in a discussion of what good government can and should be doing, as a realistic, practical matter.
Pick a year.. 1950? 1960? (1930 is over-doing it?) And let it rip...
Basically, ultimately, with hearings in the appropriate committees one goes through the Federal Government Department by Department as well as past Federal legislation and policy going back however many years (presumably to 1950 or perhaps to 1960) to ask the right two questions and variations on them that may or may not have been asked in the first place. In truth many things may be fine, many things may need to be improved, or limited, or combined, or in some cases eliminated perhaps. There is a tendency for conservatives to glibly call for the elimination of this or that, which I would avoid without giving very good reasons, but perhaps some things do indeed need to "go," and many things at the very least re-structured? Again and again these are substantive practical as well as moral questions.
Why was this program or policy put in place in the first place? Was that really a good idea? If so, is the program, policy or agency fulfilling is its mission? Why and why not? Is there un-necessary duplication? Can it be done better? Should it be done at all? Or even attempted? Again, this is a clearly a massive practical not ideological task of asking is a program politically correct or merely seeking to be "compassionate" or some other irrational, impractical, ideological agenda.
Moving the process forward...
And again and again, it seems to me the process (of reviewing if not re-structuring the entire Federal government) basically moves forward by asking the right two questions and variations on them that may or may not have been asked in the first place, and in some cases some program or policy may be found to be a mere bone to a special interest group and of no real value to the nation as a whole at all. Who knows?
This is all substantive leg-work, is it not. On the other hand there may be in some cases a general principle to apply of de-fund interest group spending such as, the old de-fund the Left idea or even Right as the case may be? Or, maybe in some cases a totally unrealistic ideological Liberal agenda dream will be found that is costing an ever increasing fortune and is really "solving" almost no real problem at all.
A bottom-line here is...
A bottom-line here is "What went wrong, and why, and how do we fix it" hearings on the out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming and increasingly at times Radical power-hungry Leviathan are not ideological at all, that is the whole point. When the dust settles on the hearings presumably what you will have is not something glamorous but Revolutionary that could re-set the course of this nation for generations or centuries to come?
"We have found the following: these programs and agencies are doing a great job as planned and these 20 or 200 are not. Some may need to be flat eliminated, some can be adjusted in mission statement, purpose, and implementation, and some should be combined with others because of duplication" and so forth, and so on. Clearly this is not "flashy," but serious and practical stuff built on correct foundational principles, and what is best for the nation with liberty and justice for all, no?
Comprehensive Reform Proposals based on the right two questions is a no-lose idea
Such a set of Revolutionary legislative proposals based on the two basic questions of Western civilization going back to 1950 or 1960 specifically so stated are really something of a no-lose proposition because even if they are rejected in 2012 for Obamaís Radicalism and often un-Constitutional race-based, gender-based socialism and/or statism, they will be needed in 2016 or 2020, or whenever the American people decide they are weary of Obamaís Radicalism and often un-Constitutional race-based, gender-based socialism and/or statism, and they do not wish to return to the irrational and unworkable Liberal entitlement Welfare State of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore based on "love" or "compassion" and where the state is attempting to supply every want and need and often for free, or close to it, as nutty FDR dreamed!
Further, if the House is going to make true structural changes in the often misconceived Liberal entitlement Welfare State which has grown up since FDR, it is going to have to do this sooner or later, and it is better to start the process or idea before 2012 than after because if we do it before, we will not only have a practical and specific and Revolutionary platform to run on but we can hit the ground running in 2013 with real massively proposed actual solutions for better, workable, effective, good government ready to be implemented.
The fact is most people individually in government are probably doing a pretty good job, but the fact is we may just be trying to do too much with government, and stuff that cannot really be done well by government. It is entirely possible that we have set up a bunch of programs and hired a bunch of people to do virtually impossible tasks and often quite expensive ones at that. But the people hired to do the ill-advised or misconceived program are not the problem, it is the Liberals who set up the unworkable programs in the first place because they were asking the classic wrong two questions that Liberals and now Radicals always ask (or perhaps they were merely seeking more power for themselves or some interest group).
Again, this is not a no-government and no regulation thing, but to "do good"
Again, this is not a no-government and no-regulation, ideological Libertarian thing. Donít go there. Look, sometimes the Pentagon does a "meals on wheels" thing around the world, and it drives some people bananas. It does not bother me that much, but it does some people. However, letís say, it does not matter why, it just happens because, say, the Pentagon has no Congressional oversight or is given carte blanche authority to spend money as it sees fit, they slowly increase "meals on wheels" (sort of like the frog in the old kettle) from minor expenses to major expenses by simply increasing meals on wheels a mere half of a percent or so for 60 years, in order to do good or promote world peace or whatever such that 30% of the Pentagon budget is going for "meals on wheels" not because of wickedness of design but by something growing ridiculously out of control, and it is an unworkable sinkhole. The Pentagon would be asking the wrong 2 questions to do "good," and further "meal on wheels" is actually not even part of their mission statement (no Congressional oversight), but the Joint Chiefs think it is "brilliant."
I use this silly and ridiculous example because I do not think it is true, of course. However, it is my suspicion that this example or something like this example or parts of it is in fact going on with some areas of the Federal government, but I do not know that, but House hearings would find out (asking the right two questions and variations on them, namely, is this program, policy, etc. a good idea really and is it working as designed, which the EPA, and NASA, and the FCC, and who knows what else clearly are not, at least according to the newspapers).
But, still, the point is to "do good," which the radical Libertarian tends to mock and ridicule. And specifically the point of the legislator it is to make good laws, rules, regulations, programs, etc. for the good of the nation, the functioning Body politic as a whole. And, again, this requires a will to make such laws and a wisdom to do so.
Obama and the 2008 Congress took Liberalism into Radicalism...
The reason why this all came to a head in 2010 is Obama enabled by the 2008 Congress changed the "rules of the game" of American politics and law in ways few have commented on. It appears the way things got so out of control from 1945 to 2008 is that Liberal entitlement Welfare State was taken as a "good" and a "given," and from there it simply grew out of control with little or no real Congressional (legislative or financial budget) oversight or with misguided Congressional oversight (with Liberals asking the classic wrong 2 questions), but no one (even Liberals) was trying to create an out-of-control dysfunctional Frankenstein, but over 60 years it happened like boiling the frog in the kettle apparently because of little or no real Congressional (legislative or financial) oversight or with misguided Congressional oversight (with Liberals asking the classic wrong 2 questions), but Obama as a Radical and not Liberal (with an enabling 2008 Congress) changed the rules on this by creating not unplanned or misguided oversight but planned no oversight as Obamaís Radical MO.
This represents a fundamental change in the Constitutional structure of our nation? The President is really only the chief executive officer of the nation. Right? Right. Congress is supposed to write the laws or rules, have the power of the purse, and have oversight, but as the misguided Leviathan Liberal entitlement Welfare State grew Congress began to slowly lose or surrender many of these functions to executive agencies, whose executive power was doing things by executive decision and not by actual law, and programs were getting money with yearly guaranteed increases every year with no accountability, without even justifying how they had spent the previous yearís money.
Whereís my rubber stamp? Who needs one!
Up until 1994 Congress was increasingly basically a rubber stamp for whatever the Leviathan Frankenstein wanted in cost or policy, and not even Reagan put much of a dent in this, although the Contract with America stopped the rubber stamp thing for awhile, but in reality the 1994 Congress only slowed down the growth of the Liberal entitlement Welfare State without fundamentally altering its direction. But Obama took the Liberal entitlement Welfare State to the next level.
As probably the most adroit politician who ever lived Obama changed all of this and took the out of control and dysfunctional Liberal entitlement Welfare State to next level that all Radical executives love by getting that wonderfully sharp, enabling 2008 Congress to formally surrender the right to legislate, that is make rules and laws, hence do oversight, as well as the power of the purse all to him personally, and doing so with activist courts, which on principle refuse to rein in or check government no matter how over the top or against original Constitutional intent the government or executive branch become.
Obama, in effect, often eliminated two branches of government.
Obama, in effect, often eliminated two branches of government. But how did Obama get the Congress to formally surrender the right to legislate, that is make rules and laws, hence, do oversight, as well as the power of the purse all to him personally? He got close to a trillion dollars to spend as he personally saw fit to "stimulate" the economy of his friends. That is the power of the purse. And he got a healthcare with apparent open-ended executive power to implement as he saw fit, and to say to whom the law would even apply, all based on his personal preferences, for exemptions, or he would bend the administrative application of law far beyond its original intend as with TARP, GM, etc. (as reported in the news, anyway).
And he even got financial reform based on gender and race and with the power to take over whole institutions in a crisis, defined by himself ultimately! And then the massive backlash came! I wonder why! But to be clear, though Obama probably does see Liberals to be so-called "useful idiots," I do not think Obama is trying to destroy the nation, as some claim. I think he is (as he himself seems to say pretty clearly in his two books) driven by his demons, but they, indeed, do wish to destroy the nation, and as demons generally do (it is demonsí MO generally as we saw time before last in Part II), they make him think bad, irrational, unworkable, amoral, even destructive and corrupt ideas and policies of Radical ideologies are simply "brilliant," but in truth to any neutral observer the massive, closed-door, interest group, payoff legislation and policies of Obama and the 2008 Congress are terrible, practically and Rationally speaking, as the 2010 elections showed, big time, and so here we are.
Nothing is off the table in government for asking the right 2 questions?
And so here we are with a new House. Do we merely throw out the Radicalism of Obama and the 2008 Congress or do we ultimately seek to set up the process to throw out the 50 or 60 years of Liberalism that led up to the Radicalism of Obama and the 2008 Congress, and inevitably caused it, and will again with time if we do not now (in the next 2, 4, 6, 8 years) slay the Liberal entitlement Welfare State Leviathan (based on a wrong two questions of amoral utopian compassion and interest groups payoffs), once and for all?
If we slay this dragon, our children and grandchildren will call us blessed I think, if we fail to slay this dragon now while we have the opportunity, they will curse us I think because even if we roll back Obamaís Radicalism, without slaying the Liberal entitlement Welfare State Leviathan both are statist, and this means our country, our children or grandchildren will inevitably re-face the very same problems we have today in years to come? Why? Because the Leviathan humanist State (of the Liberal or Radical) as "God" is going to continue to grow and grow and grow, with various setbacks, unless and until it is totally triumphant or totally defeated. There is no middle ground with tyranny, hard or soft nor with misguided, irrational, amoral ideologies? And now is an opportunity to start the process to slay this beast that might not be available again for decades even generations to come?
Part V: The Revolution people may well be talking about for centuries to come?
Tying all the pieces of this together in the entire story of mankind on earth and what victory will entail over the darkness and deception (political and otherwise) of an actual Satan with his religious and political "doctrines" and ideologies "of demons" as outlined in the New Testament and the book of the Revelation, no less, and how we came to this sad state of affairs in all history as well as the glorious opportunity this all presents to set up the actual "Kingdom of God on earth," we will look at next time in a presumably final Part V of The Revolution. The Revolution people may well be talking about for centuries to come? (I am actually making this stuff up week by week, and it probably reads like it, in seemingly disjointed argument and analysis (and numerous typos?), hopefully to be all tied together next time in The Revolution V, "the Kingdom come on planet earth" potentially. Who would have ever guessed it just a few short weeks ago? Not me, believe it or not, but apparently here we are! Is there a God in heaven, or what...)