Beware of Populist Politicians

Populism is on the march in the United States.  The destruction this ideology leaves in its wake is monumental.  Nothing goes untouched in this pursuit of social justice and income equality.  Property, institutions, and even morality are molested by deceitful politicians whom capitalize upon the ignorant, the envious and the greedy.  The end result is a third-world hellhole.

In order to fully appreciate populism and how it can devastate a country and its surrounding neighbors, one only has to look to Venezuela and other Latin American countries that emulated Hugo Chavez’s rhetoric and schemes.  Here is an excerpt from an article published by the Atlantic on the template of authoritarians:

 Populism will always stand in tension with democracy. The logic of personalism drives populist politicians to widen their powers and discre­tion. Because these leaders sustain their influence via personal appeals rather than intermediary organizations, they see any institutions outside their control as obstacles to be bypassed or overcome. Determined and politically compelled to boost their personal predominance, populist leaders strive to weaken constitutional checks and balances and to sub­ordinate independent agencies to their will. They undermine institution­al protections against the abuse of power and seek political hegemony.


Isn't that what Obama and the Democratic Party has done with government bureaucracies?  Haven't they bypassed Congress and in some instances the courts?  How many times has the courts ruled against this administration and how many times have they ignored those rulings?  


Correspondingly, populist leaders treat opponents not as adversaries in a fair and equal competition, but as profound threats. Branding rivals "enemies of the people," they seek all means to defeat and marginalize them. Turning politics into a struggle of "us against them," populists un­dermine pluralism and bend or trample institutional safeguards. Populist leaders also put strong pressure on independent forces in civil society and strive to control the media, especially television. All these attacks, depicted as a defense of the people against rapacious elites, are also meant to strengthen leader-follower bonds and thus to compensate for the lack of organizational mediation. The absence of institutional disci­pline in the populist movement prompts the leader to recharge the base's loyalty through heroic activism. In all these ways, the populist notion of politics as an "all or nothing" struggle damages democracy.


Doesn't that sound familiar?



Populism, whether of the left or the right, is a threat to democracy. Yet in Latin America today, the graver and more sustained danger is coming from the leftist variant. Chávez set the model. As soon as he was elected president of Venezuela, he set about revamping the country's institutional framework. First, he called a constituent assembly. Then, to dislodge the established political class that he charged with selfish­ness and corruption, he successfully pushed to close the recently elected bicameral Congress, where his followers held only about a third of the seats. Thanks to a reengineered electoral system, Chávez dominated the constituent assembly that boosted his powers, ended the ban on consecu­tive terms, and created a new unicameral (and hence easier to control) national legislature. These institutional victories--plus the promise of socioeconomic change--lifted Chávez and his camp to victory in the 2000 elections. Moreover, he took control of the courts and other in­dependent institutions, such as Venezuela's electoral commission, and soon had a stranglehold on all branches of government.

Populism has no place in the United States.  Yet, there are demagogues who attack our institutions and way of life in an attempt to render us subservient to their ambitions of power.  We must beware of people and political parties that espouse these dangerous tactics.  They are no friend to this republic, or the principles for which we stand.

Source:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/why-latin-america-is-becoming-less-democratic/277803/

Populism is a Killer of Democracies

The greatest American generation, without a doubt, is the original – the founding.  Many would have us believe the WWII generation deserves that moniker.  I disagree.  I’ll give them their due in defeating totalitarianism in Europe and Asia, but they helped to install a thugocracy right here in America by expanding the central government at the expense of individual liberty and our federalist system.

They were Progressive Era babies indoctrinated by a political and social movement that eschewed limited government and embraced an administrative state.  The American spirit of community, as marveled by Tocqueville, was rendered antiquated and inefficient for the dynamism of a modern age.  Progressives believed government at all levels – especially the federal – could address the ills of society more efficiently than ordinary, motivated citizens.  Populism and democracy was all the rage.  Our founding fathers would have been horrified.

 States lost representation in Washington D.C. with the advent of the 17^th Amendment.  Populism would imbue the upper chamber along with the House of Representatives.

 

Senators no longer feared censure from their State’s legislature, or a recall.  He could act with impunity until Election Day, six years hence.  That gives him plenty of time to raise money from special interest groups that don’t necessarily have his State’s best interest in mind.

Populism expanded under the WWII generation.  LBJ’s Great Society was implemented to address the plight of the poor.  We now know this government initiative is a failure and has devastated the black community.  The War on Poverty is the biggest defeat the United States has experienced to date, yet, we still throw trillions of dollars at an age old problem that will never go away.

Populism, once again, was forced upon the States.  They lost their constitutional prerogatives when a progressive Supreme Court dictated the makeup of their legislatures.  Here is an excerpt from one of my earlier blog post:

 One of those considerations was meddling in States’ elections.  A series of Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1960’s subverted the political process by retarding the rights of a State’s self governance.  These judges –  this priestly class – molested federalism by dictating the manner with which States’ shall choose their senators and representatives.  This was by no means a federal consideration.  This was purely local.

The rulings in question are Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders.  The Supreme Court fundamentally changed the legislature of States by dictating their districts and how they were to be represented.  Basically, rural citizens were to be dominated by urbanites.  Degenerate values that breed on city streets would emanate from state capitols and spread throughout the countryside.

More importantly, this reconfiguration would benefit a political party that advocates centralized government.  Having Democrats dominate state legislatures, they would draw districts that marginalize hard working, liberty loving citizens while packing federal congressional districts with teat squawkers, who are looking for an agent that would steal from his neighbors

Populism has gained more ground and is now a threat to the republic.  Progressives no longer value citizenship.  They advocate for the rights of illegal aliens at the expense of their constituents.  Hell, some of them want to grant these invaders the right to vote.  Congressmen, such as Luis Gutierrez, openly declare their allegiance to foreigners who have no regard for American sovereignty, laws, or citizens.

 

How can a congressman get away with this flagrant hostility to the American creed?  The answer is the Census has configured illegal alien diasporas into a State’s population.  Congressional districts are then forged to cater to these people.  They have just as much representation in the halls of Congress as an American.  Here is an excerpt from The Center for Immigration Studies:

This hearing is going to discuss one of the most often overlooked, but nonetheless important, effects they have: on political representation. If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be that allowing in people, even as guest workers or just tolerating illegal immigration, has board ranging effects. These effects include such things as the redistribution of House seats. For example, if we take the 11 million illegals already here and grant them temporary status, the Census in 2010 will still count them, and seats will still be apportioned to states based on their presence. On the other hand, if we enforce the law and make most illegals go home, this too will have apportionment consequences in 2010. In our discussion of immigration, therefore, we should not compartmentalize its various impacts; instead, we must recognize the broad implications of immigration on virtually every aspect of American life, including apportionment.

   

 Populism doesn’t recognize citizenship, nor does it accept the boundaries of a constitutional republic.  Populism becomes totalitarianism; it is a killer of democracies. 

 Source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/06/supreme-court-rulings-undermined.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2015/most_democrats_think_illegal_immigrants_should_vote

http://cis.org/node/554

Apostles Preach the Gospel of Washington D.C.

Joseph de Maistre once wrote the maxim, “Every country gets the government it deserves.”  That is a powerful truism; one which deserves reflection, particularly in the world’s oldest republic turning into a free-for-all democracy.

 

The United States has become a Petri dish of populism despite warnings from our founding fathers.  They knew the perils of a democracy.  Life, liberty, property and self-government would eventually fall prey to demagogues who preach envy and greed from the pulpit of a grand centralized government.  These saviors from a distant capitol will take care of every base need and want of a salivating populace by taking from others.  Their “good book” is a preponderance of tax codes and regulations.  Their apostles are bureaucrats, lobbyists, community organizers, academia and so-called journalist preaching the gospel of Washington D.C.

To ensure the power of the federal pulpit, religious institutions have to be marginalized and silenced and what better way to do that then by advancing an onerous tax code that punishes political speech.  This was first done with the Tariff Act of 1894.  That law was declared unconstitutional in 1896.  Progressives wouldn’t be denied.  They once again re-established a church tax exemption in the Revenue Act of 1913.  This act is the foundation for violating the First Amendment rights of dissenting Christians in modern America by punishing churches that dare speak out against the depredations of a corrupt political system.

Progressives have found other means to advance their agenda by changing the behavior of congregants.  The Washington Free Beacon reported the following:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.

A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.

“Climate change—which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity—is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources,” a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. “This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities.”

“Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?” the grant asks. “What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?”

“The results will provide insights into the role of religion and faith communities in motivating environmental behavior,” it said

   

Progressives don’t have a problem with separation of church and state as long as that church is the state.   Heterogeneous thought and governance is an apostasy to these cardinals of conformity.  Salvation can only be gained at the altar of the religion of liberalism.

Source:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-spends-84000-to-study-churches-that-preach-climate-change/

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/04/progressives-muzzle-churches-through.html

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre