Sunday, September 05, 2010

The Making of a Dependent Electorate

Everything the Obama Administration has done, was for the purpose of creating a dependent electorate. A people that would have no choice but let them wield as much power as they want, without a word of protest.

The dependent electorate represents the hijacking of America. It aims for a major power shift that takes power from the people and gives it to the government. Traditionally the people were dependent on the government. The American Experiment reversed the locus of control by making the government dependent on the people instead. This served as a natural hedge against tyranny by devaluing government as a means of controlling the population. And that has been the basic grievance of the progressives against America, that our system makes it possible to monopolize commercial power, but not political power. Yet for all the left's revisionist histories of America... of the two, a monopoly on political power is far more dangerous than commercial monopolies are.

The potential power of government is limited only by its dependencies. The less dependent government is, the more unlimited its power becomes. And the advocates of revising the American system to allow government to wield virtually unlimited power, have always known that their chief obstacle is the Constitutional limitations on the amount of power they can wield and their need to garner support from the electorate in order to be able to overturn them.

An independent electorate is the single biggest threat to the unchecked accumulation of government power. Which is why creating a dependent electorate is the goal of those who want to change the balance of power between the people and their government. There are many methods, but only one goal. Playing divide and conquer by subdividing society into exploitable groups, all taught to look to the government to protect them from each other, is one way. An all out war on economic independence in order to create deprivation and dependency on government social safety nets is another. Both are ways that advocates of unlimited government power cultivate a dependent electorate that looks to them for protection.

The entire debate over amnesty and illegal aliens from Mexico is yet another demonstration of the same principle. Preventing states near the border from cracking down on illegal aliens, makes the existing overdrawn social service systems in those states unsustainable, requiring Federal intervention. Since those states also tend to be more conservative and entrepreneurial, regular amnesty programs can turn those same illegal aliens into US citizens, who will nevertheless be hopelessly dependent on social services programs. Importing a dependent electorate with nothing on their minds but to vote themselves Bread and Circuses is of course a signed blank check for unlimited government power.

Transforming immigration from a way to import a labor force to help maintain a vital economy, into a stream of migrants draining social services and raising taxes on actual workers and companies is symptomatic of an agenda that calls for changing a country based on free enterprise, into one based on government handouts. Unionization and minimum wage laws ensure that there will be a two tier labor economy, one legal and one illegal. But both subsidized by taxpayers. Taxpayers subsidize the illegal labor economy through social services, and the legal one through the inflated salaries of unions.

The absurdity of the situation is highlighted when you realize that the bureaucracy is full of unionized case workers handling the social services of illegal aliens. Taxpayers not only pay for the social services themselves, but they pay the salaries of unionized social services workers too. The legal and the illegal economy meet, shake hands and then gets mugged in the park. But both groups are only cogs in the machine whose final product is a dependent electorate. The ballooning government bureaucracy makes free enterprise into an unworkable proposition. Companies outsource their labor, and keep their corporate offices in the states, while donating money to liberal candidates who ensure that free enterprise in America continues to be unworkable. It's one way to muffle any potential domestic competition before it even gets started.

The breakup of the family is yet another means of maintaining a dependent electorate. Multi-generational families are self-supporting entities, both for moral and practical reasons. Breaking up self-supporting entities that are not dependent on the state is a priority. And when the broken units of the family structure try to function, the state is there to pick up the pieces, acting in loco parentis for the children, and in place of the children for their aging parents. The state becomes the perpetual parent of adult children, and the guardian of their parents, the husband of single mothers and the father of their children. The state becomes the family, which empowers it to become a true nanny state.

Dependency breeds complacency and an unquestioning attitude. We are more willing to challenge people whom we are not dependent on, than those whom we are dependent on. And the more their dependency on the state increases, the less many people are willing to challenge the limits of its authority.

In an age where the government is obsessed with what people eat, how much they weigh, what containers they put their trash in and what their carbon footprint is-- Prohibition seems almost nostalgically libertarian by comparison. Children growing up today may find the idea that government could ban all liquor to be strange-- yet they live in a world where the government bans everything from lawn darts to sugary drinks in the name of the public good. The War on Drugs is almost a sideline, to what really should be called, the War on Everything. There are so many federal regulations that it is impossible to keep track of them. And every time congressmen sit down in their chairs, thousands and thousands of them roll off the legislative assembly line, often without the people who are passing them even being aware of it.

But what is the good of power if you don't use it? A system that channels vast amounts of power, attracts huge numbers of camp followers, from aides to lobbyists to activists eager to channel that power in a direction of their choosing. And so you get a vastly powerful government that hardly knows what it's going, because it has become a vehicle for the usurpation of individual rights at the hands of numberless political interests. All this divides a country into two classes, the same two classes that exist under every totalitarian regime, backward tribal society and decaying socialist bureaucracy-- those who have access to power, and those who don't.

In a system where there is no limit on government, meritocracy becomes a hunted animal, and oligarchy is the king of the beasts. Meritocracy works when the system has objective laws that provide equality for all. But unlimited government power always results in inequality, no matter how much its champions insist that it is a tool for ending inequality. Because power corrupts. And human beings are a corruptible species. Given vast amounts of power, they will use it for their own aims, and those of their friends. The law becomes a joke. When government power is unlimited, free enterprise withers and dies, because the only commodity that matters anymore is access to power.

This is the looting of America. And it is the aim and ambition of those who hide behind noble ideals, which always lead them to the same place, radicalism followed by corruption and dysfunction, followed by tyranny. Tyranny being the logical solution to the chaos created by an attempt to impose an artificial system of social morality on economics as implemented by English Lit and Environmental Science majors. And all they need to reach this point is a dependent electorate, a people willing to give them power, to trade their freedom and independence for economic security.

May we not permit ourselves to become that people ever again.


Lemon said...

Soviet refugees really do know. They should be listened to on these things. They understand that socialism is a serfdom.

Will48 said...

"Meritocracy works when the system has objective laws that provide equality for all." And that works by setting up conditions for fair competition which is the only available mechanism right now for merit to be the deciding factor.

But capitalism has seeds of its own destruction in it. It is the enlargement process, the coalescing of small businesses into large corporations, the cartelization and monopolization of markets which prevent the fair competition.

So, capitalism is not the value in itself, it is not a totem, but only has value as long as it serves its purpose of setting the stage for fair competition making meritocracy possible.

The state capitalism with large corporations controlling the markets, is no different from the state socialism with monopolistic state ministries (industrial conglomerates) controlling production of goods. Both are antithetic to free markets, to fair competition of producers of goods, and fair competition of ideas - the backbone of democracy.

Large corporations which engage in cartelization and monopolization of markets must be broken for the free competition to be preserved, as the only guarantor of democracy - the society of Freedom and rule of Law.

Yael said...

Not just Soviets, either. How 'bout Cubans?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I tend to avoid using capitalism, I prefer to use free enterprise. Capitalism often makes a virtue of monopolies. That said the progressive solutions of Roosevelt led us to where we are today. So it's important to maintain a balance in a non-ideal world between one set of powers and another.


"Traditionally the people were dependent on the government. The American Experiment reversed the locus of control by making the government dependent on the people instead."

America was the first country to place government under moral law. You notice that our current government seeks to be outside moral law. Whatever we know works to live, they do the opposite. To maintain their position, they must increase compulsion and get ever farther from that which serves human life. It is forced into its own demise by this fact of nature which it cannot, as we are seeing, violate with impunity.

Paul said...

Anyone concerned about the cultivation of an electorate must confront the "two party system" and its grip on US government. There is a sure way to free the public from any attempts to engineer a public who can only vote for this political block: Get rid of the primary election system. Make it a federal crime to collect party membership for purposes of voter registration. Return the process of nominating candidates for office to the "two" political parties and all the rest. Here in California, you may register "decline to state", but that just points the way. It is none of the government's business what your political party is for purposes of voter registration and nobody in government has any business using the government to keep track of this information.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

a multiparty system just insures that no one is represented, and you end up with the same political elites being able to dominate the process with even smaller numbers of votes


Regarding capitalism and the use of that word, it is critical that one define his terms, otherwise a mess ensues. I define capitalism as an economic/political system in which ALL property is privately owned. (I did not originate this definition. It makes sense to me and that's why I use it.) The government owns no property and cannot regulate property. It's job then is to prosecute crimes of one person/group against another which means that it stops, restores where possible and punishes all instances of one man/group initiating physical force against another. This always comes down to a crime against property in which the property may be far flung or as close as one's own body.

In this view of capitalism, a corporation is no more protected than any other business. It is free to engage in commerce to its heart content. If it infringes anyone's property it is open to prosecution as is anyone else in a capitalist system.

The source, I think, of all the corruption is the entanglement of government and the economy. They need to be separate as are church and state. Let's face it, a government cannot control an economy for any rational reason given that the economy is so much more instantaneous and aware in its judgments and actions to further or correct human action.

Given that, I don't see that the government's intervening in the economy has any purpose other than personal gain (power and money) of the politicians and their friends. We are told the government provides economic benefits but show me one case where the government has provided value even close to what private industry can do. I don't think it exists. Our poor are rich by the standards of many people in the world and that is from first hand observation. And that's because the measure of political success, votes, is not economic success, profit.

The thing that is also never mentioned is that this entanglement of economy and state prevents the government from doing its proper job and thus, actually being something providing for the good of all of us. Without a clear cut idea of the proper role of government anyone going into government today has to be one frustrated human being. None of this has to be this way. All it takes is for us to sort this out. We have to get straight how things work and how they fit together. If things continue down the road we are on, we are going to be better off w/o a government and that heralds the rise of the black market.

Marc said...

The looting of America will continue until the $US is worthless, and tyranny will follow. It is important for the electorate to vote in November, and hopefully return the legislative branch to conservative control.

Paul said...

"A multiparty system just insures that no one is represented, and you end up with the same political elites being able to dominate the process with even smaller numbers of votes."

I think you've really lost a grip here. We don't have any kind of "party system" in the US. Our constitution protects access to government by anyone qualified under the constitution. Party membership is not required at all. And strictly speaking, we already have a "multiparty system" and of course we already have the same political elites being able to dominate the process. You can choose between the Democrats or the Republicans and no matter who you choose, you wind up with the same thing. The problem is the "two party system" where both parties confuse themselves with government and since it is necessarily the same government, they confuse themselves with each other. Of course they present enough differences to the public to make it look good, but look at where they agree. And they agree on far too many things too often contrary to the interests of this country, illegal immigration for example.

The Soviet Union and the Communist Party are a good example of how political parties and government go wrong. There was a government in the Soviet Union, but very quickly the Communist Party defined the government to the point where the Communist Party Secretary became the first and last authority in government and the party secretary was the seat of dictatorship. The government was just a hollow shell in service to the political party. In the Soviet Union, it was just one party and in the United States, it is just one more party to make two with a few other "third parties" thrown in to dignify the facade.

If the Republicans or the Democrats really mean anything as independent political parties, then they will endure without the primary election system. They can keep track of their own political members and they can nominate members for office free from an election where frequently the public is confused as to what the election is all about. Over and over again I've seen voters go in and vote in the primaries thinking it was the actual election for the office instead of an election for party nominees. Why does it necessariy follow that running their elections for nominees will destroy their influence in government leaving it to other parties to rise and splinter up the share of candidates? And if it take a fewer amount of votes from the public to make a party take the seat, so what? As long as that party cannot use government to adminster further nominees in primary elections, they still have to prove themselves to the public. Even worse, we have in California an absurdity in the idea of "open primaries" where all the nominees in the political parties run against each other in their respective parties and also run against each other and the top vote getters, I guess, all run against each other in the actual election. It is a desperate ploy against the rise of the "decline to state" voter and what that status inevitably points to, voter registration free from party registration and the end of the primary election system.

Keli Ata said...

The House UnAmerican Committee may have gone overboard, but I wish there were some government entity investigating people whose actions are dangerously moving the US towards Communism.

I don't know if the US has ever come this close to becoming a Socialist state.

Will48 said...

Monopolies can easily eliminate competition and free enterprise without any use of naked force, just by lowering prices to drive competition to bankruptcy.

Big and diverse business conglomerates are equally dangerous as they acquire too much power in setting trends through advertising and media, themselves becoming substitute government, again without using any kind of naked force.

Free markets should be protected by government enforcing anti-monopoly laws (and possibly protecting freedom of the press - the right to speak, for everyone). Ideally the Ministry of Truth (sic!) should be a government agency which would check every piece of published material and provide the public with full evidence to its veracity or otherwise.

The roaring 20-s came after a period of active monopolies-breaking by the US government, it seems (by the other Roosevelt, was it?).

As for elections, they should be made permanent. Why wait 4 years to withdraw the president who acts opposite to promises for which he was elected? We have computers now, we can vote each and every day, and the votes will be totaled every day and so the will of people will never be abused by the elected elites just because they got immunity to do whatever they please for 4 years.

Plus, any voter should be able to directly vote on issues too that are especially important to him, instead of delegating his vote to a representative.

To prevent too fast government changes which would be impractical and chaotic, simple dampening mechanism can be used - 65% majority required to overturn the govt in the 1st year, 55% in 2nd, then 50% + 1 vote, as usual.

Post a Comment