Pages

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Ordinary for a Republic


U.S. President Barack Obama is currently serving his second term and, as most observers of American politics can attest, that is when the scandals usually come out. Of course, it is a little more difficult with the current occupant of the White House because the media industry (news and entertainment alike) so heavily favored him in his initial run and reelection that commenting on any missteps must be extremely uncomfortable for them. Like Bush and the lead-up to the Iraq War, they might admit their mistaken lack of scrutiny -but only after the fact when it is too late to actually do anything about it. There is the continuing fallout over the terrorist attack in Libya, the “Justice” Department violating the privacy of the Associated Press and the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting conservative groups opposed to the policies of the current President for extra scrutiny. No matter how one cuts it, things are not looking good for the big B.O. who has either been flagrantly dishonest or (if we are to believe he only ever learned about any of these things when they were finally reported on by the news media) grossly incompetent. Of course, these sorts of things happen in countries all over the world and scandal and politicians go together hand-in-hand. Again, especially in second terms, American presidents have a habit of getting into trouble. Ronald Reagan had the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky scandal and George W. Bush had the case of the incredible disappearing weapons of mass destruction. It is nothing new.

The one I would like to draw special focus on for our purposes today is the IRS going after conservative groups. This too is not entirely original. President Richard Nixon was also accused of using the IRS to punish his political enemies (for those unaware, the IRS is the agency which collects federal income taxes and most Americans fear them about as much as your average German probably feared the Gestapo). This is no minor issue as the IRS has vast and far-reaching powers, hence being known by many as “the most powerful collection agency in the world”. They can violate your privacy, take your property and even clap you in chains and haul you off to prison if they think you have not paid your feudal federal overlord his required tribute. They can completely ruin your life and they have (not a few times) done so to people only to find out later it had all been a case of mistaken paperwork. The IRS is nothing to fool around with. Presidents being accused of using this most fearsome weapon to punish their political enemies is also nothing new though it can be extremely difficult to prove. This time, as usual, President Obama is claiming he had nothing to do with it and, again, only learned about what was going on in his own government from watching television. That last part is a little hard to believe but, even though the political nature of this scandal is undeniable, it is possible that the President had nothing to do with it. If it is proven that he did; that would be an impeachable offense -but I doubt it will come to that and, even if it did, no U.S. President has ever actually been removed from office following an impeachment.

It is perfectly understandable that many on the right in America would, in the absence of any concrete evidence, believe that the President had something to do with this. Many of these same sort of conservative groups have, in the past, been lumped together with violent radicals and terrorists by the Obama administration. It is perfectly clear he doesn’t like these people and the feeling is mutual. I make it a rule to have nothing to do with organizations or political parties but even on my own, I have no doubt that, were I known to him, the American president would have as low an opinion of me as I do of him. It doesn’t bother me, but it does strike me as rather disconcerting for those “conservative” republicans with fairly mainstream views who would fall into the same camp. More than those people though, I wonder what, if at all, the people in the monarchies of the world think about this state of affairs. Do they realize what this means? And do the republicans on those monarchies arguing against a hereditary head of state realize what it is they are arguing for?

In the great Commonwealth of Australia, for example, I wonder if they look at what is happening in the United States and appreciate their own good fortune? In the United States, if you are on (or anywhere near) the political “right” there can be little doubt in your mind that the President of your country, the head of state and government and the commander-in-chief does not like you at all and possibly even despises you. Moreover, he or at least many of his underlings are not averse to using the power of the state against you -and you pay the salary, benefits and pensions for these people (all of which are quite generous). How would that make you feel? Yet, this is the system that Australian republicans and their comrades in other monarchies wish to foist on their people. People living in constitutional monarchies should look at what is going on in the United States, which is nothing new, and cling all the more tightly to their system in which they have a non-partisan and non-political head of state who can (literally) do them no harm whatsoever as opposed to the republican system where absolutely everything is political, everything is partisan and there is no government department, agency or service that is not constantly locked in a struggle to advance their own agenda and suppress those who think differently than they do. Every elected government in the world has partisans, that goes without saying, but it must be nice for those living in monarchies to know that their head of state and commander-in-chief doesn’t actively hate them.

But even if we are to take President Obama at his word, that he knew absolutely nothing about the Benghazi talking points tampering, the IRS targeting his political enemies (how convenient) and the Justice Department spying on the Associated Press it certainly doesn’t speak well for the accountability of the U.S. government. After all, the advocates of a republic always tout accountability as one of their greatest arguments, yet, here we have an elected president who claims to know next to nothing about all of these major events going on in his own administration. Furthermore, even in this American republic which has a better record than most, is full of departments and agencies like the IRS which have extensive, sweeping powers, which can put you in jail, seize your property and totally ruin your life and they are all being run by people no one ever voted for, who cannot be voted out of office and who often keep their jobs regardless of who the occupant of the White House is. It seems to me that anyone living in a monarchy need only to look at the United States right now and thank God for their reigning sovereign.

9 comments:

  1. I would posit that Britain is hardly better at all. Many Western countries have succumbed to the left-liberal idea of an all-encompassing state and consequent decrease in liberty. A model doomed to fail with disastrous consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I would posit" that Britain is better off even if only because it is not the Queen, the head of state, who is involved in such despicable behavior. She has gotten along perfectly well with liberal and conservative governments and has shown no indication of being out to destroy either one.

      Delete
  2. Yet everyone still insists that Republics are more honest and accountable, even after Obama, Bush, FDR, Nixon and Wilson. Some of them are even held up as heroes!

    Anyways, I started reading your blog a little more than a month ago, and I can honestly say that you pulled off the fence and into the Monarchist camp. Thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to the ranks. It does astound me that people in other monarchies can look at the record of the American presidents (keeping in mind that the American record is actually far better than most republics) and still think a republic is the way to go. They can lie to the public, steal from the public, plunge the country into unnecessary wars, even put thousands of innocent people into concentration camps and yet somehow there are those who still think that a republic automatically means more "freedom". Astounding.

      Delete
  3. Great article! I love your blog, but I don't know how to
    Help the monarchist cause myself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To be honest though I've never understood American fear of taxation. Surely we would all be taxed regardless of where we live, what government we have, and which time period we live in? It's the eternal guarantee of a state. In exchange for tribute, they in theory guarantee peace and security - the most basic social contract.

    Though otherwise I'm not surprised - President Hollande and his government are just as devious when it comes to using state power against political enemies. There was a riot recently, not a single police officer was deployed to contain it, but vans upon vans of special security forces are used to "protect" the Interior Minister when he is protested by anti-gay marriage crowds! Absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any conservative at least objects to paying taxes for basic state functions like security but they do object, and I do also, to all of the wasteful spending government does and I object to the impossibly complicated nature of the tax code. I'd be willing to pay a little more if they would just send me a simple bill every year and let me dispense with my accountant.

      Delete
  5. Great Post M.M.!

    Sure would be nice to have Leader who wants what is best for the nation as a whole and not reward his friends and punish their enemies!

    In a Republic where everyone is "Equal", you sure are treated awfully unequally if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Republics are a great Absurdity and I agree, by making absolutely everything political and giving all the power to electi4ed officials, you should expect this sort of thing.

    However, I will defend Obama, albeit tentatively base don the Principle of Innocence till proven Guilty. I will clarify by saying that I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that Mr. Obama really did order the IRS to suppress his political rivals, but without evidence I cannot say he did this for certain. I will say that, after taking a few Government contracts as a researcher, and knowing how Labyrinthine the system is, it isn't in my mind out of the question that Obama didn't know what was happening. He could have simply appointed the Higher ups who appointed the managers who appointed the middle managers which gave the orders. Still, though, its because the hiring policies fall on Political Lines that we see this happening. Obama appointed fellow Liberal Democrats, ho in turn hired other Liberal Democrats and used the IRS to promote Liberal Democrat Political Agendas.


    Had we a King, and one who had he power to appoint his own ministers free of Political Squabbling, we'd see far less of this. No, it'd not be completely absent, as even Kings do err in promoting their own ideology, but as a King is not a Politician and not tied to a Political party, you have a vastly better chance of a more neutral decision on who to run what, base don more than just party affiliation and ho donated how much to what cause.

    ReplyDelete