How Presidental Election Politics Overrides Party, Congress, and Nation.

Good folks will often say that the President manages the economy or runs the country. "Nonsense." is the usual libertarian response. The economy, through the natural mechanisms of freely set prices and private property, is not directed, guided, or managed. The ordinary acts of trade, work, and ownership make it go and sort out the occassional flaw through the free choices of free people. Manage an economy and it will fail. This is not really debateable after the events of the last century: the utter failure of planned economies, the disasters of government interference in Europe and Japan, and lately has become obvious even in the United States of America. The current economic "crisis" is, just like 1929, completely the fault of the federal government and its agencies and central banks. In other words, Congress screwed up. The complaints that the mess is due to deregulation is like saying the kid covered in mud is clean when only his hands have been washed. The claims that this is a failure of markets is like like claiming we were robbed by that guy chained in the dungeon.

What free market drove the political appointees (that is what they are) at freddy and fanny to give campaign contributions to elected officals? That was politics, not economics. What free market principles drove fanny and freddy to loan money to people who could not repay? Again, markets are not that insane. Politicians are and they are the ones that literally forced the lenders to lend (I mean give away) stock holder money (I mean tax payer money).

As for the President running the country, God help us, I beg that this never happens. It would be Fascism. Even though American Fascists look like classical liberals next the European and Asian varieties, there is no other word for it and it not an exaggeration. He (or she if the Republicans have their way) is not a king, an emperor, or a god. He or she is a human being with a FEW, LIMITED powers granted by the people through their Constitution and is not allowed to bully us about. Neither is Congress. Nor is the Supreme Court our master. But who will ever tell them? Having said that, please do not mention my name in this connection.

Like Fascists everwhen, the more centralized the better and the best of all is a single leader. The English word for that is monarch. And so, oddly, we find the little Fascists in Congress willing to sacrifice their popularity for the sake of the big Fascist in the Whitehouse. In every recent case, except Ronald Reagan, even the survival of their parties took second place to the survival of their President. What else would explain Democrats refusing to impeach or convict President Clinton for perjury? What else would explain the Republicans voting for President Bush's internal imperialism (to use Fr. Richard Neuhaus's phrase) over schools, charities, and presciption drug distribution?

When elected officals or media personalities say that the President manages the economy or runs the country I get angry because they should know better and have a heavy responsibility to teach and lead. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, et al, would be appalled. When ordinary citizens talk like this it just makes me sad. I know they do not really mean it. These are only phrases we are allowed to hear and see on television.

Along with these is the phrase, "on your watch." The President gets the credit or the blame no matter what Congress does. For example, Bill Clinton--lying--claims to have given the country no deficits and great prosperity. Nonsense. Both were the doing of Newt Gingrich. Clinton fought Gingrich every step of the way. It is not too far wrong to say that Newt saved Bill's Presidency. This is not debateable, it is obvious, and is therefore invisible to the New York Times. The other side is George Bush, who's chief and only flaw is to trust the good will of his political and international opponents. He complained about freddy and fanny, he lobbied Congress to reign them in, and was arrogantly ignored. But he gets the blame when his warnings come true. Or, he has been after Congress for years to loosen up the brain dead regulations against energy, both nuclear and petroleum. But who does the press blame when this chicken comes home to roost?

And now, after shining a little angry light on how poorly American Fascism works, allow me to describe my main point.

The Reed-Pelosi Congress has sacrificed itself, its reputation and achievements, for the goal of electing a real Fascist to the presidency. They believe that the president is able to change America, to run America, to fix America. Of course they are wrong but the point is that they believe it. To the end of electing a Democrat to the post of god, they have blocked every effort to fix the problems we have. They are convinced that hatred of Bush can be turned into an election victory. They are also convinced, because it usually happens this way, that the members of Congress will escape notice in the blame game (Heaven forbid a reporter should blame a member on the front page) and that the President will get it all. Most important, they do not want things to go well or people might get the idea the Republicans are not so bad.

This is vile. Still, I believe it to be true. How else to explain a refusal to take up any bill that will help people? Minimum wage? What do you think gave us the recent uptick in unemployment? Put aside the issues of the policy, the intent was not a living wage for poor folk but to embarrass President Bush. He too was more political than wise and did not veto the bill. Too often he has cooperated with idiots because the newspapers love idiots. I do not get him at all.

There lies the big mistake of the Democrats. Bush's popularity is about one third of the nation. But does that mean we all think he is too right wing? Of course not. Ten percent of the seventy percent who dislike Bush think he is too right. About half of the seventy think he is just wrong and do think of it in right and left terms. That leaves about fourty percent of the seventy who think Bush is too far left.

I know this hard for leftists to believe, but many of us think Bush is not a conservative (except in a few areas). The more they paint him as a conservative the more we like him. The more he does stupid thinks like work with Teddy to pass a bill to harm public schools the more libertarians and conservatives mistrust him. Look at the angry dust up over the boarders. Were those lefties who shouted mean things at Bush?

Ironically, the Democrat stratigy to elect their version of god will made the electorate so mad at Bush that they elect McCain. All McCain needs to do to karate leftists is to appear a little to the right of Bush and help Obama along on his quest to get as far left of Bush as possible. Once again the left proves it has no clue about conversatives, libertarians, or religious people. Their foolishness may also lose them the Congress.

Oh, boy!

Charles Johnsen
chj3@westernabzu.us
westernabzu.us