Kirsten Mortensen's blog

Found a great complement to my post from yesterday.

One of the problems with centralizing power is that it means all the chickens are gathered into a single henhouse. You make it too easy for the fox.

Shannon Love has a post at Chicago Boyz that does a beautiful job of making this point.

The post is titled Why the Rich Really Love Socialists. Here’s an excerpt:

The ugly truth is that the really wealthy can manipulate the political system to their own ends better than ordinary people. They can lobby for specific tax breaks that only they can take advantage of. They can get government trade protection for their companies. They can get bailouts. If all else fails, the truly wealthy can simply relocate their wealth into whatever area the government policies du jour make the most profitable.

Iin the comments, someone says Love is describing “corporatism,” not socialism. Here’s her response:

I am describing what actually happens under democratic-socialism as opposed to what democratic-socialist theory and rhetoric say will happen. We usually slap labels on ideologies based on their differences of theoretical predicates and predictions but if we classified them according to actual outcome we would get a much different graph.

Corporatism, as usually defined these days, isn’t even a ideology but rather a Marxist boogyman invented to create the illusion that people only have the choice between it and marxism. In reality, the conditions that marxist claim constitute corporatism only come about due to the polices of socialist.

Historically, all ideologies that believe that the State should have final say in economic matters turn into fascist states economically. It is a matter of parallel evolution. The same practical limitations on industrial and political organization squeezes all socialist states into the same form regardless of the ideology they start out with.

Many people who consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive” believe that they can bend a strong central government to their will, or to ends that serve the people.

Their hearts are in the right place.

But what is the basis for such a notion?

When has a entity that has concentrated political power ever been responsive to anything but itself — the needs of the people who hold that power?

Ever?

EVER?

A parallel belief is that somehow the Federal government balances the power of “rich corporations.” But “rich corporations” naturally find ways to ally themselves with the Federal government (with any political body of course, but the Federal government is so huge and powerful that it’s ultimate prize) — it’s in their nature to do so. They find ways to manipulate the Federal government — ways that are invisible to us, and so cannot be punished.

If rich corporations break laws, they should be brought to justice. But painting “the rich” as by definition corrupt is as baseless and insidious and unjustifiable as any other prejudice.

We need to get past that.

Here’s a nice big dose of the medicine our country needs. It’s an op-ed piece published in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, written by Andrew P. Napolitano, a retired Superior Court (NJ) judge.

The article is titled “Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution.” It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s the bit I wish was front and center in the public discourse:

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or “delegated”) powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What’s more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner — a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example — that directly enhances everyone’s welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

Napolitano goes on to decry the $700 billion bank bailout as running “afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles.”

We’re sitting by and letting our federal government run amok. And nobody even realizes it’s happening because we’re so POORLY educated about our Constitution, what it says, and how its words defined a society — our America, this, our own dear country — that is so unique in history.

If we want to become more like Europe — if we want to become more socialized — if we want a government that takes care of people instead of (“merely”) creating a space where we can look after ourselves — then so be it.

But in doing so, we’re creating a different country than our Founding Fathers envisioned. And we should be honest with ourselves about that. We should make that choice with our eyes open.

We’re not. We’re being led to it by liars who make base appeals to our fears and present issues as cartoons that have nothing to do with what truly matters about how we govern ourselves.

It breaks my heart . . .

I only hope it’s not too late for us.

I find the way he won his first election in Chicago distasteful. And illuminating.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”

This is the guy who projects such a genteel persona when he’s in front of the cameras.

Here’s the woman he shoved aside to get elected btw.

Hardly the behavior of a gentleman.

Then I read stuff like this:

In all, DOJ lawyers and staff in the metro area have donated at least $150,000 to Obama. No wonder they seem more interested in prosecuting those who warn against vote fraud than enforcing vote-fraud laws.

What could be more fair than to give everyone a chance to verify the accuracy of new voter registrations in a state (Ohio) that just might decide a national election?

But it’s not going to happen.

That stinks to high heaven.

Our voting process is broken. The ONLY way it can be fixed is to set and enforce OBJECTIVELY fair rules. Otherwise we will never move beyond the fallout of the 2000 debacle in Florida.

But that “change” isn’t going to come from Obama. And why not? Because winning is more important to him than honor. So of course he went back on his word to accept public financing for his campaign. Why let a little thing like a public promise get in his way?

I’m sure his backers are more than happy to overlook such tactics. After all, it gave him (another) huge advantage over McCain. All’s fair in love and war, etc. etc.

And he’s using some of that money, naturally, to ensure that any disputes about the election process are resolved in his favor. Like trying to make things uncomfortable for people questioning ACORN’s voter registration tactics.

And once the votes are all in — make way for an ARMY of lawyers.

In Florida, Democratic lawyer Charles H. Lichtman has assembled almost 5,000 lawyers to monitor precincts, assist voters turned away at the polls and litigate any disputes that can’t be resolved out of court.

“On Election Day, I will be managing the largest law firm in the country, albeit for one day,” said Lichtman, 53, a Fort Lauderdale corporate lawyer and veteran of the five-week recount after the 2000 election when Florida eventually delivered the presidency to George W. Bush.

Again, if you support Obama, you’ll find this excusable, I’m sure, if not admirable. But it belies the facade of Ivy League gentility that he projects. And that troubles me.

Integrity is a real quality, not a rhetorical trick.

People worship this man, but insofar as their respect is based on the assumption that he’s a “good man,” they’re being duped. He’s not a good man. He’s an ambitious operator who knows how to manipulate both peoples’ perceptions and the electoral process.

Welcome to the brave new era in national politics.

Not only will he likely raise our taxes, but I don’t trust him to use our tax money wisely.

Surprise, surprise: he’s no saint. On the contrary, his record shows he buys political contributions in exchange for fat political favors.

The above Boston Globe piece, published in June, paints the picture. Obama collected hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from housing developers in Chicago . . .

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers – including [Valerie] Jarrett, [Allison] Davis, and [Antoin "Tony"] Rezko – collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting.

He then funneled low-income housing development projects to these individuals.

They took the money, built the housing, and then skipped out:

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.

But it’s not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale – a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Look past what Obama says to what he does and you discover a cynical opportunist.

He grabs campaign contributions.

He doles out sweet deals to his buddies. Including family members btw.

And he could care less about whether the programs he supports actually help the people they’re supposed to help.

McCain’s far from perfect. But whatever his flaws, he strikes me as a fundamentally decent man who really does have principles — and sticks to them.

I just don’t get the same read from Obama. He’s mastered a kind of idealist rhetoric, clearly. But what that seems to have done is to make the man a kind of vessel into which people project their political ideals. This makes him extremely electable but also highly unpredictable.

Even committed leftists should be worried, IMO. In last night’s debate, for instance, he made sure to hit the anti-war hotbutton that won him the Dem nomination — criticizing the Iraq war. but he also claimed he supports military intervention in a number of circumstances. He says he wants to hunt bin Laden down and kill him, for pete’s sake.

Pretty bloodthirsty words for the Peace Now candidate, dontcha think?

So how to read this?

Has he jettisoned his dovish principles in order to appeal to on-the-fence voters who he’d lose if he didn’t claim to hate al Quaeda?

Or is he really more hawkish than he pretended to be in the early days of the campaign, when he tacked left of Hillary on foreign policy?

Must be one of the above. But either way, he’s once again revealed as an opportunist, isn’t he?

And we have no way of knowing which Obama will show up after the election — do we?

I don’t believe him when he says he won’t raise my taxes.

The programs he outlined in his nomination speech will cost us a trillion dollars over four years.

The tax increases on “the rich” that he’s proposed will bring in maybe $50 billion a year.

Where’s the extra money going to come from?

An no, ending the war wouldn’t bring in enough, either.

McCain, otoh, can be trusted to do two things. He will not raise taxes, and most likely will lower them.

And he push back on pork spending, which will at least help reduce government spending by keeping Congressional pig snouts away from the trough.

No, FDR didn’t end the Depression — he prolonged it.

By seven years. Research and analysis courtesy two UCLA economists.

Suppose anybody will catch on to this in time to avert bone-headed government policies during our current economic fright ride? I’m not holding my breath, personally . . .