When I started my little blog, it didn't occur to me that trolls would come out in droves. Why would leftists expend their energies on me? And why would they subject themselves to scrutiny by a licensed psychotherapist?... These trolls use the same weaponry of other extreme progressives: shame and degradation. They try to use ridicule as sort of stun gun, immobilizing the other. (Another interesting tidbit: People with character disorders do the very same thing. Coincidence?)... The most hardcore of the leftists seem almost feral, wild, and undomesticated. Many lack even the most rudimentary of social skills...These trolls are obsessed with infiltrating other conservative or libertarian blogs with comment sections, Facebook groups, etc. Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek every once in a while patiently dispatches the occasional "stump the professor" "progressive" smartass. I generally don't spend a lot of time on Facebook or other blogs, and only occasionally comment, but the familiar reader realizes that I've recently embedded some images found on Facebook and I've created a new Q&A feature sparked by occasional Facebook group polls or posts.
But of all the things that got a response was a shutdown-related comment I had previously published in a post, i.e., Obama will negotiate with Putin, but not with Speaker Boehner. I got a response to the effect that I've been watching too much Hannity. Any familiar reader knows that for the last several months, I have not tuned in any FNC programming (I do subscribe to O'Reilly's Talking Points podcast and RedEye); I can only remember 2 times: after the Zimmerman verdict and a speech. With respect to Hannity, I found him too repetitious and predictable; I'm not going to search the blog for past references of Hannity, but I'm sure I've been more critical than complimentary at least a half dozen times. I don't think anyone reading my blog would confuse me with Hannity, and I have no idea why, if Hannity made such an observation on negotiations, other people think it originates from him. It's a rather obvious point: Obama during the weeks leading up to the shutdown said that he doesn't negotiate with "hostage takers", "terrorists", etc., implying the political opposition was not principled but aimed at himself personally. (He thinks that he's that important; I don't really care what he says or does; he's repetitious and not that respectable a thinker. He's a partisan, not a legitimate leader.) So when he refuses to talk to Boehner while saying the economy is at risk, but he finds the time to meet or talk to the presidents of Russia and Iran, the contrast is rather obvious.
The critic had no way that I would consider it insulting that he accused me of getting my ideas from Hannity. I replied that I do not watch Hannity, but I inferred that coincidentally Hannity came up with a similar comparison and wrote that Hannity then must have gotten one right. But I've never viewed this in partisan terms, which bore me, but in terms of fundamental principles. I'm not that much interested any more in elections and partisan bickering. I've been sharply critical of multiple long-time GOP politicians (see my new Bad Elephant of the Year tag).
I have written multiple critical analyses of Time columnists, some in-line my miscellany posts, others in one-offs. I rarely frequent the editorial comments in the Gray Lady; clueless columns from the likes of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd aren't good enough to line the bottom of a birdcage. (Krugman has sold out his academic credentials to pander to leftist populists, and Dowd's pedestrian commentaries are poorly toned.) I don't go out of the way to review 101 liberal news sites with writer's block, looking for something to write about. What happened yesterday I was scanning news accounts on the grand opening of ObamaCare when I saw a cited tweet on the edge of the webpage where some "progressive" was gloating how some Washpo columnist had quoted James Madison from the Federalist Papers in the face of the shutdown-causing GOP or Tea Party.
This sounded suspicious from the get-go. Madison was hardly a promoter of a strong central government with a huge budget and sweeping powers; in fact, he was the Father of the Bill of Rights, which those of us advocates of limited government constantly quote. The Federalist Papers were written in part to address the fears of a strong central government. In fact, #10, which the piece of work James Downie cites disingenuously and knowingly, is one of the key historical documents addressing the concept of the tyranny of the majority:
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788. The phrase gained prominence after its appearance in 1835 in Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, where it is the title of a section. It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill, who cites Tocqueville, in On Liberty (1859). The Federalist Papers refer to the broad concept, as in Federalist 10, first published in 1787, which speaks of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majorityIt takes chutzpah and gross intellectual dishonesty for a progressive to knowingly quote Madison out of context. Here is the quote that Downie opens his piece with before then attempting to read a presentist "progressive" political spin on it:
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.Downie, of course, is attempting to follow the conventional Dem line demonizing the tiny Tea Party caucus in Congress, as trying to impose its "sinister" will on stopping ObamaCare and other matters.
What Madison is discussing, in broad terms, is that a minority of legislators cannot pass a law for the nation by themselves. Maybe they can impose their will by numbers in a single or few states but not in the overall union of states. But the effects of smaller groups get washed out in a bigger pool of competing interests; conceptually this is similar to the law of large numbers. Smaller groups must compromise in forming majority coalitions in a republic, a moderating influence. Recall that Madison is trying to convince people worried about centralized government run amok. He is arguing that passing laws is going to be difficult. In fact, most of us with a more libertarian perspective don't seek to unduly intervene in domestic or international policy; we want to scale back federal powers to core distinctive competencies like common defense and a judiciary enforcing basic individual unalienable rights.
There are several things wrong with Downie's analysis and underlying assumptions. First and foremost, the facts of Obamacare reflect a blatant abuse of Madison's more pressing concern of a majority faction:
Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority... When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed... Does [a republic vs. democracy] consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage....A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.No intellectually honest person thinks that if James Madison was alive today, he would say his words were aimed at the Tea Party; it is manifestly obvious Madison was condemning EXACTLY what the Democrats did during the 111th Congress, the biggest sin of which was ObamaCare. Nobody in 2008 thought they were electing Democrats to remake the healthcare system in the way ObamaCare was corruptly cobbled in the Senate Democratic back rooms, with deals like the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, and the Louisiana Purchase; GOP attempts to modify the legislation were routinely voted down in party-line votes. And then after Scott Brown was elected as the filibuster-sustaining vote #41 in the Senate, rather than expose a reconciliation bill between the House and Senate, Obama shoved the Senate bill down the House's throat, cutting side deals and losing dozens of Democrat votes in the process.
Popular opinion was heavily against the bill for months before passage; health regulation is traditionally the province of the states under the Tenth Amendment, and the 85% of the population insured were happy with their own insurance. The political majority tried to nationalize healthcare under a disingenuous rationalization of self-insured individuals and disparate state policies (e.g., of guaranteed issue). They created a huge bill that was cobbled together literally hours before voting on it (without reading all the nuances.)
But the fact of the matter was this law, for the first time in American history, had been muscled into law, completely marginalizing the political minority without a single vote.
Returning to the present, as I've mentioned before, there have been laws repealed and programs cut or eliminated (not nearly enough). The idea that a party-dominated Congress and President could create a super-law, beyond the reach of future Congresses is patently absurd. Moreover, the Republicans do have a mandate to do something about ObamaCare in the people's House. It's not just the Tea Party; there is absolutely no GOP support for ObamaCare. Ir has nothing to do with some conspiracy against Obama; it has to do with out-of-control entitlements, the usurpation of state regulation, what we hold is the unconstitutional violation of non-event mandates and increasing centralization and crony nature of healthcare entitlements, and the setup of yet another unsustainable entitlement. The Senate is currently controlled by Senate Democrats, most of whom voted for this law; so this is a conflict; but this dispute has been misleadingly presented; the House did not tie the repeal of the entire law to the continuing resolution.
In fact, the GOP, unlike Obama, is abiding to the rule of law; Obama, for instance, has given employers until after the mid-term elections to comply with statutory mandates. The GOP has sought to relax the comparable individual mandate through legislation.
Downie's piece is derivative partisan claptrap, largely based on Obama Administration talking points. I've heard it a hundred times; they are mostly preaching to their own choirs. What pissed me off was Downie's contemptible misrepresentation of Madison's views. "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project"--can there be any question how Madison would view of today's "progressive" Democrats?
- "paper money"--it was not the GOP whom confiscated privately-held gold during the Depression; it was not the GOP responsible for the Federal Reserve or which gave the Fed a second mandate (full employment, which politicized the Fed even more). (I do admit Nixon did put the nail in the coffin of even a limited gold standard.) The point is that the GOP has called for repeal or at least reform of the Fed, discussion of convertible currency, sound money, etc.
- "abolition of debts" --it is not the GOP talking about writing off mortgage debt or college student loans
- "equal division of property"--name any of a series of Democrat redistribution schemes, including progressive income taxes and social welfare net programs.
