WINNERS AND LOSERS
IT SHOULDN’T REALLY MATTER SO MUCH, RACHEL MADDOW
– OR –
WHY SMALL GOVERNMENT MATTERS
– OR –
LEAVE ANDREW AND HENRY ALONE, PLEASE
Why is it that Democrats and liberals are sometimes enthralled by majority rule and occasionally supportive of certain minority “rights?” It seems that it is the case only when two conditions exist simultaneously. That is, the Democrats are so inclined only when (1) Democrats hold a majority in Congress, and (2) the minority in question is a group whose power they can arrogate for their own use. They buy constituencies with promises to [ab]use the powers of a democratically-elected government to take other people’s money and freedom, presumably making their constituents’ lives ‘better.’
However, when a minority is made up of rich, white, fat-cat bankers, black conservative judges, evangelical Christians, southerners who speak with a twang, women who think that abortion is not a constitutional right, or people who voted for Christine O’Donnell, that minority is open season for hate, derision, and ridicule and doomed to a life of being told how to live and think.
That’s just fine, except for the doomed life part, that is. I don’t object to Rachel Maddow having those opinions and getting paid by MSNBC to entertain her audience by making fun of Rick Santorum’s religious views, John Boehner’s tan, Dick Cheney’s shooting skills, John Ensign’s personal foibles and George Bush’s swagger. However, I do object to Rachel’s favored politicians having the political power to turn her occasionally more substantive opinions into government policy, thereby nullifying my unalienable right to experience and pursue, on my own terms, the best and worst of a life made possible by my essential freedoms. Voting for the loser in an election should not make a man a second-class citizen, should it?
Our government has become so untethered from the rule of law that elections are now, unfortunately, winner-take-all contests. “We won, the election is over” has become a statement of policy, a statement of destiny and power that cannot and must not be challenged. In Blair House, the summer of 2010, when Barack Obama said as much to John McCain, no one blinked – they simply nodded. Even the stronger Republicans in the room sort of slouched and looked away as a decorated war hero and five-term senator looked down at his lap, put in his place by a former community organizer wielding the power of a tyrannical majority.
In that sphere, where that tone is the norm, compromise is neither possible nor desirable; there is no compromise between truth and lies. And the solutions that spring from that level of power, corrupting power, are so far reaching as to effect voters’ daily lives in ways not contemplated by the Constitution and in ways that are not conducive to productive, fulfilling, happy lives, untainted and undisturbed by political bile and vitriol.
That’s why modern political discourse has become so divisive, derisive, personal, destructive and ugly. The stakes are too high; the stakes are ‘live your life my way, it’s the law now!’ In my America, that’s the same as ‘life or death,’ because Americans know freedom is our birthright, that our rights are inalienable, of our essence, and being deprived of them is tantamount to being executed. For freedom and civility to reign again in America, we must reduce the stakes. We must reduce the reach of government so that the loser in a political battle might continue to live his life without the tyranny of the majority forcing him and his supporters to surrender their money and freedom of thought, and live thenceforth according to the demands of the next Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner . . . until the next destabilizing, fight-to-the-death election, of course.
Rachel, Michele and Barack, you can have it your way, really. Just keep ‘your way’ inside of your lives – let me live my life, raise my children, pursue happiness and dispose of my property as I prefer, pretty please, with sugar on top. You possess the same freedoms; they’re never going to be threatened by me or mine, I promise, cross my heart and hope to die.
You see, only when government power is so omnipresent (recall ‘Big Brother’ of 1984) that it is omnipotent, does what it does really matter. If, and only if, we can tame the political class’s ambition and reach, put the government back in its Constitutional cage, will we get along more peacefully. Otherwise – more food fights and screaming matches will ensue, enormous sums of money will be spent seeking to buy control of Congress and the White House, instead of flowing into private invention and innovation that would make life more bearable, peaceful and healthy for Rachel, Larry O’Donnell, and Chris Matthews, and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams and Glenn Beck (well, maybe not Chris and Glenn) and they could move on to doing something more pleasant and productive than shouting at one another about whose mother smells like army boots.
OH, and that money would flow into innovation that would make life more promising and fulfilling for my two sons – after all, they’re the only reasons I give a damn about any of this. What, pray tell, are your reasons, Rachel and Barack; why does it matter so much to you? Why won’t you let me and my sons be free? Why do we have to agree with you or go to jail for not paying the tax that supports the social program you prefer? I care for the poor as much as you do, I just think government helping the poor is an oxymoron. Why won’t you help the poor and fund medical research the old fashioned way – by convincing people your way will work, and I’ll do exactly the same thing. No guns, no laws, no IRS involvement. Deal?