My response to "Is the US Now On the Slippery Slope To Tyranny," by Thomas Sowell

I have kind of stopped talking about politics on this blog, at least in any in-depth way. Because I feel like the interface is not the best for real discussion. If you were all talking to me face to face, we'd be happy, pleasant, maybe a bit lively, we'd laugh. Reading it, the messages usually come across a bit harsher.

But I've made an exception this time, because I spent so much time on this for a friend's sake that I thought, I ought to post it. A lot of effort for just one person is good, but I feel more justified spending two hours on this if I feel like more people might read it. So... enjoy. I hope.

BTW, this friend has also authored a response to this article. Go check it out for a slightly different perspective.


Before I read this article, I decided to read the Constitution. Just to make sure I had it fresh in my head.

OK, so here is my response to the article. I'm going to do it line-by line, as my friends have done sometimes. :) I'll put my responses in italics, in order to help differentiate.


When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.


Most politicians have this goal... most are trying to gain the votes of, not only those who normally are active in politics, but also those who have, for whatever reason, remained apathetic or uninformed about politics. This can be a bad thing (some politicians like to use a voter's lack of knowledge against them, instill them with propaganda and so forth) but you have to admit... America as a whole is waaaaay too apathetic about politics. How many people vote? I'd love it if more people voted. In fact, this is the ONE thing I can't stand in a person who I'm discussing politics with: apathy. And many people have to grow politically, too, as they participate in the system. That is the one thing I LOVED about Obama's campaign... it got so many people motivated. He said things that reached people that don't normally vote, and now those people are possibly more interested for the rest of their life. Or at least, more informed. And perhaps will be more likely to continue to participate in the future, and continue to inform themselves.



Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.


True, true. What does this have to do with anything, though? This is true in any political movement. It's particularly true, right now, of the tea party.



"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.


That's sad. I don't think Obama thinks of his supporters that way. If he did, he definitely wouldn't be silly enough to say it.



Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.


Very true. How do they get informed, though? And at what point are they informed enough not to be "useful idiots"? Should those who haven't reached that level of political experience an scholarship be not allowed to vote?


In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.


People have made this claim ever since the Constitution was written. I'm excited to understand the basis for this particular perspective, your specific reasoning that the Constitution is being dismantled.



The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.


It's true. And a lot of those falling numbers come from the radical left, who are disappointed at how very centrist and moderate our new president has shown himself to be. One has to understand, too, that any presidency that has picked up the kind of troubles that Obama's has, will have its ups and downs. One the one side, people get upset when things don't move fast enough, on the other side, people get upset because things are happening, period. A moderate president like Obama will tick off both sides. I'm surprised his numbers aren't far, far lower. To me, his current approval rating, in spite of all that is currently plaguing our country, is an interesting indication. Of what, I don't know... I don't generally base my opinion of how someone's doing on how everyone else feels about him.


Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.


True! It says that nowhere.



And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


How? From what I understood, BP agreed to this. Obama's not standing there with his special CIA task-force, forcing billions out of BP. They talked together about how to fix this. BP has also apologized profusely, and made several statements to the effect that what they are doing is not enough.





Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.


To me, it's more about the egregious damage it has done to the planet. But I agree there are people who deserve compensation. Good thing BP seems to have taken Obama's advice, and is willing to try to work this out. It's likely to their advantage; it's better than being sued for their billions, by however many thousands of angry people have been hurt by this.



But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."



If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.



But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."


True. Good thing that the government's not confiscating anything... and that BP has agreed to try to repair the damage without having to be forced to by the judicial system. This actually makes me respect the company a whole lot... maybe I'll buy stocks when they've gotten over this hurdle and started developing clean energy technology :)



Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.


Nope, it's way different. I'm glad you admitted Obama wasn't confiscating this, though. But I'd like to know what "distinction without a difference" means. Sounds a little shady to me... sounds, in fact, very much like "political-speak."



With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.


How?



If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.


I don't believe that the end justifies the means.


Please explain how these private enterprises were forced to do this. Explain these vastly expanded powers that somehow forced BP to agree to a measure that was clearly to their advantage, not only politically, but also economically in the face of potentially thousands of very expensive lawsuits.



And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.


That's nice. Again... could you please explain? I'd like some specifics, please.



That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.


Ok, now comes the fear-mongering. Just so you know, Mr. Sowell, you need to back up your fear-mongering with real information. Otherwise people are likely to call you out on it.


When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

This is more Skywalker's area of expertise... I'm kind of hazy on this topic. But at any rate, I don't see what it has to do with Obama. The words "gold standard" are a rallying point for a certain group of people. I think that's your only reason for using the words, because the two situations do not parallel in any way.



At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."


This is all very interesting. Really. I just don't see what it has to do with Obama. I'm waiting for the whole argument of him tearing apart the constitution to be backed up by something at least somewhat tangible... Just one real example. That's all I ask.



That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.


"Rain of destruction" sounds kind of cool and biblical. I like it. I think I'm going to tell Bella that the next time she disobeys I'm going to rain destruction on her.



If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.


Isolated event? Of what? Talking to a company--

it's a british company, by the way... so even MORE clearly not something Obama can really do ANYTHING about even if he wanted to-


about the best way they can minimize their losses and discuss a problem that is very real to a large percentage of American people?


I actually wouldn't mind more of those isolated events. ;)


The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.


He was not appointed by Obama. Here's the link, again... please go read it, Mr. Sowell. He's acting as a go-between for Obama and BP, as both the American people as a whole (citizens of several states, involving federal disaster programs, etc) and the company need to figure out a way to work this whole thing out.



Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?


I agree with this statement entirely... and I'd say... useful to any politician who wants to use them. Or to their public, if they have a following. Who are you useful to, Mr. Sowell?