Dominator and Dominated: Here’s a Dimension of What Goes on Between Right and Left in America in Our Times
Here’s another venture in exploring the dynamic between right and left, and in particular the failure of the left to stand up to the right in this time when that is so emphatically what our Founders would have hoped for when they set up this system of government.
********************
What’s going on between right and left in America aligns across an ancient template: it’s the template of Dominator and Dominated. The liberals don’t completely acquiesce, but they do shrink from the battle rather than dive into it with gusto. Tyranny of various kinds is an old story in civilization, and the human capacity to be conned by evil (like many Bushites) and to be cowed by evil (many liberals) has meant that people have bowed to evil for epochs. History has not been great on Justice, but people have to find a way of coexisting while “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
The Dominator and the Dominated– that gap in power that so readily leads to injustice, and the rule of the most power-hungry who are willing to sacrifice everything to get the power.
So the aggressive Bushite spirit has intimated the Democrats and American liberalism for most of the past generation. A big mistake not calling Limbaugh out as the face of the Republicans in the early 90s: that degrading force should have been defeated as soon as it became large enough to be a factor.
And the Democrats did not work to impeach George W. Bush, who did ten or twenty TIMES the amount one should have to do to warrant impeachment. So much more than Nixon. So much WORSE THAN WATERGATE.
While in the preceding decade, the Republicans had worked to entrap and hope to destroy a president, seeking weapons to do so throughout his administration and settling on the impeachment for the crime you worked to create, to impeach a president for dicking a younger woman (who had come after him) while being married to a woman his own age– sleazy, yes very. But not the kind of “high crime and misdeamonor the Founders had in mind–things like lying the country into war, like using the Justice Department as a political wing against your opponents, like ignoring the Constitution, like violating treaties and laws of the land. And the list goes on.
In spite of the very sorts of crimes for which our Founders had provided impeachment as the remedy –”to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”– the Democrats were timid, and shrank from challenging that lawless president.
One more incidental thought, another abuse of power by that Bushite presidency that has been too little noted, too little discussed, perhaps because its meaning was too little understood:
We should make something of Bush’s pardoning Scooter Libby. That pardon showed a lack of respect for a branch of government– that is, it showed a contempt for the courts, that had meticulously worked to enforce the law. To overturn that with a pardon: even that by itself should be an impeachable offense.
There is no legitimate reason why Scooter Libby was free to violate the law he was convicted of having violated. The law had been applied with great care. Fitzgerald did his job right, at least in getting Libby convicted.
It is an important and legitimate law and a jury found that he had violated it deliberately.
For the president to throw out that conviction with a pardon: an assault on the rule of law that must surely be as “high” a “misdemeanor” as the Founders had in mind. Putting power above the central principle of our nation: the rule of law, the one guarantee that the mighty will not just take everything for themselves. That was the Bushites, and so Bush spat upon the law and freed his man from prison: no one is going to hold US accountable!
Why have liberals been so weak about holding them accountable? It is a question I think deserves to be confronted continually.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I think this is a very insightful essay!! You really nailed the problem!
Thanks!
March 6th, 2010 at 2:14 am
Andy wrote:
…”it’s the template of Dominator and Dominated. The liberals don’t completely acquiesce, but they do shrink from the battle rather than dive into it with gusto….
“….Why have liberals been so weak about holding them accountable? It is a question I think deserves to be confronted continually.”
*****
I continue to wonder about this. The thought I had today was, “What happened to the Democrats and their base, such that – individually and collectively – they act as if they have already been defeated?”
Psychologically speaking, what are the mechanisms at work, which lead them to simply ignore the moral imperative of taking a stand when this is obviously (to many people) what is needed. Also — why this obsession with “being weak?”
Oe thing seems certain: Their behavior is far from a “rope-a-dope” strategy.
I suppose one level of explanation arises out of the saying:
“The fish rots from the head down.”
March 6th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Joan, besides wanting to thank you for your appreciation, I also wish to apologize for somehow having let your comment fall through the cracks for so many hours before re-discovering and posting it.
March 6th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
DEMS AS “THE DOMINATED?” NOT IF MICHAEL MOORE HAS HIS WAY!
Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director
Dear President Obama,
I understand you may be looking to replace Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff.
I would like to humbly offer myself, yours truly, as his replacement.
I will come to D.C. and clean up the mess that’s been created around you. I will work for $1 a year. I will help the Dems on Capitol Hill find their spines and I will teach them how to nonviolently beat the Republicans to a pulp.
And I will help you get done what the American people sent you there to do. I don’t need much, just a cot in the White House basement will do.
Now, don’t get too giddy with excitement over my offer, because you and I are going to be up at 5 in the morning, seven days a week and I am going to get you pumped up for battle every single day (see photo). Each morning you and I will do 100 jumping jacks and you will repeat after me:
“THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED ME, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, TO RUN THE COUNTRY! I AM IN CHARGE! I WILL ORDER ALL OBSTRUCTIONISTS OUTTA MY WAY! IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T LIKE WHAT I’M DOING THEY CAN THROW MY ASS OUT IN 2012. IN THE MEANTIME, I CALL THE SHOTS ON THEIR BEHALF! NOW, CONGRESS, DROP AND GIVE ME 50!!”
Then we will put on our jogging sweats and run up to Capitol Hill. We will take names, kick butts, and then take some more names. If we have to give a few noogies or half-nelson’s, then so be it. In our pockets we will have a piece of paper to show the pansy Dems just how much they won by in 2008 — and the poll results that show the majority of Americans oppose the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and want the bankers punished. Like drill sergeants, we will get right up in their faces and ask them, “WHAT PART OF THE PUBLIC MANDATE DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND, SOLDIER?!! DROP AND GIVE ME 50!”
I know this is the job Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be doing.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have always admired Rahm Emanuel (if you don’t count his getting NAFTA pushed through Congress in the ’90s which destroyed towns like Flint, Michigan. I know, picky-picky.). He is what we needed for a long time — a no-apologies, take-no-prisoners fighting machine. Someone who is not afraid to get his hands dirty and pound the right wing into submission. Far from being the foul-mouthed bully he has been portrayed as, Rahm is the one who BEAT UP the bullies to protect us from them.
That’s certainly what he did in 2006. After six long, miserable years of the middle-class getting slaughtered and the poor being flushed down the toilet, Rahm Emanuel took on the job of returning Congress to the Democrats. No one believed it could be done.
But he did it. Big time. He put the fear of God into the party of Rush and Newt. They had never been so scared. More importantly, though, he instilled a sense of hope in the Democrats that they could actually score the mother of all hat tricks in 2008 — and with you, an African American no less, in the pole position!
It worked. The Darkness ended. The vast majority of the nation wept with joy on the night of the election (those who weren’t weeping went out and bought a record number of guns and ammo). Unlike the last president, you didn’t “win” by 537 votes in Florida (although Gore won the popular vote by a half-million), you beat McCain nationally by 9,522,083 votes! The House Democrats got a walloping 79-vote margin. The Senate Dems would caucus with a supermajority of 60 votes unheard of in over 30 years. The wars would now end. America would have universal health care. Wall Street and the banks would, at the very least, be reined in. Hardworking citizens would not be thrown out of their homes. It was supposed to be the dawning of a new age.
But the Republicans were not going to go quietly into the night. You see, instead of having just one Rahm Emanuel, they are ALL Rahm Emanuels. That’s why they usually win.
Unlike most Democrats, they are relentless and unstoppable. When they believe in something (which is usually themselves and the K Street job they hope to be rewarded with someday), they’ll fight for it till the death. They are loyal to a fault to each other (they were never able to denounce Bush, even though they knew he was destroying the party).
They dig their heels in deep no matter what. If you exiled them to a lone chunk of melting polar ice cap, they would keep insisting that it was just a normal “January thaw,” even as the frigid Arctic waters rose above their God-fearing necks (“See what I mean — this water is COLD! What ‘global warming’?!
Adam and Eve rode dinos…aagghh!!… gulp gulp gulp”).
We thought we were all done with this craziness, but we were mistaken. Like a beast that you just can’t cage, the Republicans convinced not only the media, but YOU and your fellow Dems, that 59 votes was a minority! Precious time was lost trying to reach a “consensus” and trying to be “bipartisan.”
Well, you and the Democrats have been in charge now for over a year and not one banking regulation has been reinstated. We don’t have universal health care. The war in Afghanistan has escalated. And tens of thousands of Americans continue to lose their jobs and be thrown out of their homes. For most of us, it’s just simply no longer good enough that Bush is gone. Woo hoo. Bush is gone. Yippee. That hasn’t created one new friggin’ job.
You’re such a good guy, Mr. President. You came to Washington with your hand extended to the Republicans and they just chopped it off. You wanted to be respectful and they decided that they were going to say “no” to everything you suggested. Yet, you kept on saying you still believed in bipartisanship.
Well, if you really want bipartisanship, just go ahead and let the Republicans win in November. Then you’ll get all the bipartisanship you want.
Let me be clear about one thing: The Democrats on Election Day 2010 are going to get an ass-whoopin’ of biblical proportions if things don’t change right now. And after the new Republican majority takes over, they, along with a few conservative Democrats in Congress, will get to bipartisanly impeach you for being a socialist and a citizen of Kenya. How nice to see both sides of the aisle working together again!
And the brief window we had to fix this country will be gone.
Gone.
Gone, baby, gone.
I don’t know what your team has been up to, but they haven’t served you well. And Rahm, poor Rahm, has turned into a fighter — not of Republicans, but of the left. He called those of us who want universal health care “f***ing retarded.” Look, I don’t know if Rahm is the problem or if it’s Gibbs or Axelrod or any of the other great people we owe a debt of thanks to for getting you elected. All I know is that whatever is fueling your White House it’s now running on fumes. Time to shake things up! Time to bring me in to get you pumped up every morning! Go Barack! Yay Obama! Fight, Team, Fight!
I’m packed and ready to come to D.C. tomorrow. If it helps, you won’t really be losing Rahm entirely because I’ll be bringing his brother with me — my agent, Ari Emanuel. Man, you should see HIM negotiate a deal! Have you ever wanted to see Mitch McConnell walking around Capitol Hill carrying his own head in his hands after it’s just been handed to him by the infamous Ari? Oh, baby, it won’t be pretty — but boy will it be sweet!
What say you, Barack? Me and you against the world! Yes we can! It’ll be fun — and we may just get something done. Whaddaya got to lose? Hope?
Retardedly yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. Just to give you an idea of the new style I’ll be bringing with me, when a cornhole like Sen. Ben Nelson tries to hold you up next time, this is what I will tell him in order to get his vote: “You’ve got exactly 30 seconds to rescind your demand or I will personally make sure that Nebraska doesn’t get one more federal dollar for the rest of Obama’s term. And then I will let everyone in your state know that you wear Sooner panties, backwards. NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 50!”
March 6th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Another scene, played as personsal vendetta. No doubt a nice little stipend to undermine Barack…. Rham also received large amounts from the Health Insurance Lobby. The citaitions are in the public record.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
how ironic to have an article about dominators and those dominated in which the dominated are blamed.
will someone remind me… what does dominated mean?
March 6th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Is it really true, Sam, that you see these things the way your comments suggest? This whole website is dedicated to fighting the darkness from the Dominator side. You recognize that, don’t you.
And given that it’s dedicated to that purpose, it also makes sense to discuss how OUR side does or does not stand up and fight. Would you quarrel with that?
Moreover, with but few exceptions, the people who read on this site are people who are against the Dominator side already. So, besides the fact that the great majority of postings here are about the evils of the right, it would seem –would it not?– that with the kind of people who gather here on NSB there’s a GREATER need for finding out way to making our side more effective than there is for kindling our already-longstanding and intense distaste for the lying and bullying hypocrites on the other side. Would you disagree with that?
We’re not going to change the Dominators from being what they are. What we can CHANGE is their being able to succeed in gaining power using their disreputable tactics. Which means fighting them more effectively. No?
(And besides all that, the article you find so ironic for blaming the dominated spends considerably more space delineating condemnations of the impeachable offenses of the other side.)
You continually respond this way, Sam, and I am befuddled by it. Virtually every criticism of the liberal side elicits from you a condemnation as if such criticism can ONLY be a way of weakening the side we should be supporting.
What I claim here is that while the GOP tried to impeach Clinton without good cause, the Democrats failed to impeach Bush despite their having more impeachable offenses displayed before their eyes than (I would venture) all the 42 presidents before him –PUT TOGETHER– had committed. BOTH the impeachment of Clinton, AND the failure to go after W, WERE SCANDALS.
Do you disagree with that?
“Blame” is at many levels not a useful approach. However, being dominated does not make one blameless equally in all circumstances. A terrorized inmate in a concentration camp is dominated in conjunction with his utter powerless before a vast and powerfully armed regime that terrorizes him. The Democrats, in my opinion, make themselves far less powerful than they need be because they ADOPT the role of the Dominated –for whatever set of reasons– in the face of an adversary whose advantages in power are NOT given in the situation.
I know that you believe –and here is another of your themes– that the media are utterly stacked against the Democrats. I think there’s a lot of truth in that, though even that truth is in part a function of the Democrats’ way of dealing with (or dealing away) their power: people like FDR and LBJ knew how to use sticks as well as carrots to influence people, as well as the press.
But regardless of the inescapability of Democratic handicaps regarding the media, I simply do not accept that the Democrats need to be nearly so dominated by the lying and bullying hypocrites of the right as they are.
Is it that you think they do about as well as can be done? Or is it that you think that even if they squander their potential power –by virtue of whatever characterological or ideological impediments they may have– it is incumbent upon people like us here on NSB (and upon me in particular) to keep our mouths shut about the problem?
I really do not understand where you’re coming from, Sam.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:05 am
My first vote was for JFK. His assassination had a huge impact on me, and I didn’t vote again until 1992, although I had kept up with politics and the elections. It took a few elections for me to finally lose it with the Democrats because of their wimpyness. It seemed that no matter what the other side said about them, or did to them, they just cowered in a corner, not even trying to fight back, crying helplessly.
In 1993, when it became quite obvious what the Republicans’ Agenda was, and that they didn’t intend to stop until they brought down Bill Clinton, and hopefully the whole Democratic party with him, I began to study both parties like specimens under a microscope. I found the physical differences alone between the two parties in Congress absolutely stunning. There were the Republicans in their perfectly fitting black suits, crisp shirts and perfectly straight ties; with never a hair out of place, never a hint of softness in their eyes, nor a single hair out of place, or a slouching posture to be seen among them. But it was their uniformly hard, glittering eyes, and unsmiling countenence that distinguished them as a single, totally united body. Not one ever spoke out against anything one of their side said.
The Democrats in comparison appear as a whole to be rumpled, tousled, and fidgety. Their eyes show a softness, and they smile a lot. They also have differing points of view.
I came to the conclusion, after ten years of watching and trying to figure out how these two groups of human beings could be so completely opposite in appearance and viewpoints, and came to the conclusion they had to have come from different planets. Then several weeks ago I watched a Nova special on TV about the chimpanzees and their cousins, the bonoboes(sp?), and it became crystal clear where these two political parties, as well as the true Independents, came from.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Great comment, Wilma. What we need are bonobos who know how to bare their teeth when it’s called for.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Ditto…and pick up a club with the willingness to swing it, when that’s what’s needed.
The bad guys don’t neccesarily have to die, but a few serious injuries would be fine by me…and a big morale booster for the bonobo tribe.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Then there’s this, conveyed to me today by my brother, from a posting –an open letter to Obama– by a “therapist/astrologer”:
“I am a clinical social worker with a private practice in psychotherapy. In my opinion, the Republicans follow the pattern of the abusive spouse in a relationship. The Democrats often take the counterpart role of the abusee. The abuser criticizes endlessly and viciously with attacks that come out of left field. The point is to derail, weaken, and confuse the abusee. It is easy to get caught up in the content of the attacks and be defensive. But the attacks will never end no matter how much one gives in to them. It is about process not content. The abuser seeks power and control and to keep the abused on the defensive, confused, and derailed from legitimate goals.
“You have an exquisite sense of what is true and right. Please do not let them get you off track with their trumped up nonsense. They are not interested in true and right but in power and obstruction. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is about two sides who disagree on content. Remember, they are the ones who keep changing the goal posts.”
March 7th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Wow. Exactly.
I would lo love to see the Dems own their own power and discover their capacity for insight, such that the game Would become about Process. The writer says it with perfect pitch: limiting oneself to addressing content only is a loosing strategy – big-time.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
One thing we know about “spousal abuse” victims is that most need a lot of support to even begin to realize that there is an alternative to the way they are living.
Beyond that, removing oneself from such a situation (by doing whatever is necessary, including the use of deception) can feel like a gargantuan task.
Those who make it out of such a situation (which in fact could lead to their death) should rightly be considered heros.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
In this case, we’re stuck in the same country as the abusers. So the only solution is to develop the means of standing up against the bullies.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Andy, What you say about the bonobos needing to bare their teeth when necessary is so true. Problem is the bonobo females were in charge, and the males couldn’t even come together to try to take control away from them. Maybe it’s time we concentrated on getting more liberal women into government. They may be the only answer to standing up to the bullies – after all this time it’s certainly obvious the men can’t do it.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Andy,
In my analogy it is the “abuse victim mindset” that I am suggesting the Dems remove themselves from.
Can you or (anyone else!) think of any realisitc scenario in which this might actually happen?
March 8th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
You have indeed done a great job of analyzing the problem. What is the solution?
March 9th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Today had the thought:
“The Democrats act like “babes in the words.”
Or, if you like, “deer in the headlights.”
How can a whole group of (relatively intelligent — enough to get elected, anyway) people feed off each other’s fear and naivete? What exactly is this group so afraid of??
Any person who is reasonably mature can see that standing up to bullies is the only thing that has ever worked. It doesn’t take a genius and it is simply common sense. Especially when the stakes are so high.
So, just how did (does) it happen that – as a group – the Democratic party lacks this basic awareness and the integrity to stand on principles and act on them?
March 10th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Holy cow! I feel like I’m with the protagonist of “The Time Machine,” listening to the Eloi complaining about the Morlocks.
Granted the Democrats have their issues, but dominated, nowadays, really? They occupy the presidency, with majorities in both houses of congress, and here you are, still whining about some guy named “SCOOTER”, as if the concept of a presidential pardon is unheard of (article 2 section 2, US Constitution), and worse than Pres Clinton lying under oath. Are the issues of the day too much to deal with? Or are you just wishing for the good old days, the ones before your party had the reins of command, and you could safely complain without having to take responsibilty for the direction of the chariot?
HMJ,
Thanks for reprinting the letter from Michael Moore. I’d seen exerpts, but not the part about HIM leading our president in calisthenics. Mr Moore getting psyched about doing 100 jumping jacks each morning was priceless. It brings to mind the old chestnut, “After all is said and done, more will be said, than done.” Could it be that is the root of the problem that is being addressed here?
March 10th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Yes, you’re right about that, Ray Pine. In a way, that’s the point. They have real power, but don’t wield it effectively. The Republicans have less power, but they’ve been doing rather well in the battle. It’s like that New York headline that Obama cited: after the election in Massachusetts, something like “Republicans enjoy 41-59 Majority” –sarcastic, a critique.
If the power equation required being Dominated, that would be one thing. BUt to use one’s power so that it unnecessarily turns into weakness, in the crater of being Dominated, that is an issue that needs to be confronted.
The United States has needed for Democrats to be able to protect the country a lot more vigorously against this darkness from the right. They didn’t defend the Constitution against by far the most lawless president in American history. While the Republicans were willing to try to unseat a president over a mere sex scandal.
Unhealthy. An entry way for evil to play a pervasive role in shaping the destiny of the nation.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Ray Pine,
I’m glad you enjoyed the letter.
I want to add that I think the construct “Dominated” fits the situation quite well, and I wonder if you are viewing the situation too narrowly. Context seems quite important here.
Meanwhile, this from Jim Hightower on CommonDreams – (and clearly the backbone image applies to much more than the economy):
Stiffening the Backbones of Democrats
“You know what we need to juice up the performance of our weak economy? Viagra.
“Yes, America needs a new Viagra, specifically targeted to stiffen backbones – in particular, the limp backbones of Barack Obama’s team, as well as the flaccid spines of Democratic congressional leaders. Where’s the drug industry when we really need it?
“The Obama-ites seem incapable of firm stands. They excite us by boldly addressing our economic woes, then they seduce us by proposing stout actions. But when it comes time to follow through – it’s droopsville……………………”
March 11th, 2010 at 8:56 am
“The United States has needed for Democrats to be able to protect the country a lot more vigorously against this darkness from the right. They didn’t defend the Constitution against by far the most lawless president in American history. While the Republicans were willing to try to unseat a president over a mere sex scandal.”
So lying under oath is ok if you are lying about a sexual act?
Haven’t heard anything about the recent broadly bipartisan renewal of the Patriot Act, is that piece of legislation ok by you, now that there’s a Dem in the White House?
Have you heard anything about the Holder justice dept using warrentless eavesdropping to ferret out overseas financial finagling?
March 11th, 2010 at 9:38 am
There was a case only because the Supreme Court ascertained –erroneously– that this private matter could proceed without impact on the public role.
There was a case only because right-wing money had gone looking for a way to bring Clinton down.
These are on the factual record.
So, no, it’s not OK for some average Joe, or anyone, to lie under oath in any kind of case.
But no, that’s not what impeachment was put into the Constitution for. It was not intended as a means for political forces to destroy a presidency over private conduct. It was there as a way of protecting the integrity of the Constitutional system against abuses of the power that a president holds under that system.
Lying about sex was not an assault on the system. Nixon’s sending in Plumbers to spy on the opposition parties, or to rifle the files at the Brookings Institution, and his using the FBI for his own political purposes against his enemies– those were abuses of power that the Founders wanted Congress to be able to punish by removal from office. With W, the list of such abuses was much, much longer.
I don’t know about what’s being done on warrantless eavesdropping by this administration, but there ARE a lot of ways in which this president’s has had his Justice Department at least DEFEND, if not practice, some of the power-grabbing of the Bushites. I suspect this is a CYA effort, leaving little room between his approach to national security and Bush’s, since every time he does ANYTHING different, the right-wing types like Cheney raise the hue and cry about “He’s not protecting us!” But whatever the reason, I disapprove strongly.
Obama’s taken some important steps toward restoring the rule of law. But he hasn’t gone nearly far enough.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“I don’t know about what’s being done on warrantless eavesdropping by this administration, but there ARE a lot of ways in which this president’s has had his Justice Department at least DEFEND, if not practice, some of the power-grabbing of the Bushites.”
When will you let the scales drop from your eyes, and admit that there is less difference between the two parties than you would believe?
President Obama’s respect for the rule of law was made clear to me when he fired the CEO of GM, and single handedly decided that bankruptcy law wasn’t going to rule in the auto mfrs case. He would not allow the union contracts to be nullified by that process, and let the company’s bondholders get reimbursed.
The President has gained the White House with sweet talk and blandishments. He swept his electorate, the intellectuals, the college students, and the urban poor off their feet with the power of his silver tongue.
Now it’s the morning after, and everyone who voted for him is trying to ignore the stains on the sheets, and pretend the act was consentual, and meaningful.
The founding fathers had it right: the problem is not with just any one man (or party) taking too much power– the problem is human nature. They saw that government– to be most effective for all– must be limited. Sadly the checks and balances set up by the constitution have been eroded. But then our constitutional lawyer -in-chief has pointed out to us , it is a flawed document.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Well, the better you understand what you’re talking about the better able you’ll be to help me with those scales over my eyes. The CEO of GM was fired by the company’s Board of Directors. Obama had a lot of leverage over GM at that point, since without the corporation’s being propped up by the government, it was going to go belly-up. But putting conditions upon a rescue is NOT the same as interfering. And there was nothing in the transaction that violated in any way “the rule of law.”
March 12th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Ray Pine,
I’m curious re- how much you know re- holes in the government’s narrative concerning 9/11. That is to say that the government’s narrative, if nothing else, is itself a “conspiracy theory.”
March 12th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Andy,
” The CEO of GM was fired by the company’s Board of Directors. Obama had a lot of leverage over GM at that point,”
So, president Obama didn’t do the firing, he told the Bd of Directors to do it, and they did. Your semantic mind tricks don’t work on me, young Jedi:-)
As I assisted you with presidential power to pardon, help me better understand this; please refer me to the section in the constitution that gives the president the power to direct the actions of private businesses, or to lend them money, for that matter.
HMJ,
I’m confused, are you suggesting that my dislike of government encroachment on our day to day lives is somehow paranoid, or related to some conspiracy theory?
March 12th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
You’re right, Ray Pine, when you say you’re confused.
“Encroachment”? If someone says, I will leave you alone, or I will rescue you, but if you choose the latter there are some conditions– that’s encroachment. You see no difference between the president firing someone who is not under his control, and that person’s being fired by those with the authority because they NEED help that comes with those conditions?
Hardly semantic mind tricks. You raised this whole issue under the banner of this government involvement in GM somehow showing Obama’s disregard for “the rule of law.” There’s nothing whatever illegal about a rescue that has conditions.
Indeed, if you want to fault Obama, you should fault him for not having imposed more conditions upon the people on Wall Street who also would have gone under without government help (though a good deal of that mistake –or corruption– was committed by the previous administration).
Tell me, Ray, are you really unable to see the vital distinction –where it comes to the rule of law, or where it comes to that question you raise about the constitution and a president presumably “directing the actions of private businesses”– between interfering with a corporation that wants to be let alone and imposing conditions on a corporation that is desperate NOT to be let alone because on its own it will fail?
March 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
BTW, this whole approach, that one hears often from certain circles on the right, of asking “where in the constitution does it say that the government can X, Y, or Z” is entirely bogus, and rests on a thorough-going misunderstanding of the nature of the constitution. It’s quite appropriate when it comes to things like warrantless wiretapping, or habeus corpus, since the Constitution explicitly limits the power of government where fundamental rights are concerned. It imposes a lot of such limits, and the Courts stay busy interpreting them.
But the argument of “where in the constitution does it say the government can X, Y, or Z” argument would eliminate most all of what the government does. Where does it say that the government can buy a big hunk of territory from France, or that that the government can build the interstate highway system, or that it can draft men into the service, or that it can regulate broadcasts on the airways, or that it can pay farmers subsidies, or that …well, you get the point.
Some of those may be fairly closely adumbrated in the Constitution, but for the most part, the government has been pursuing –in fits and starts, and with various arguments along the way– the goals listed in the preamble, where “We the people of the United States,
At a time when the economy was teetering on the edge of another Great Depression, and when two of the three huge American automobile companies were about to go belly-up, thereby creating with its ripples another perhaps one and a half million unemployed, and compounding the already two-trillion dollar shortfall in demand in the American economy, keeping those companies afloat certainly seems to qualify as a means of “promoting the general Welfare.”
March 14th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Andy,
I was confused by Hanu Man Ji’s cryptic reference to gov’t conspiracies and 911, apropos to my post, not by your semantic sleight of hand.
” Where does it say that the government can buy a big hunk of territory from France,” Art 2 sect 2 presidential power “to make treaties” was apparently good enough for congress, although Jefferson himself had some qualms, as you probably know.
or that that the government can build the interstate highway system, art 1 section8, to establish…post Roads’
or that it can draft men into the service, art 1 sect8 ” to raise and support Armies”
or that it can regulate broadcasts on the airways, or that it can pay farmers subsidies
Well, I think here you begin to make my point, although I’m sure that the commerce clause, “to regulate Commerce…among the several States”, or the elastic, “To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” were the justification.
The 10th amendment,”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It seems pretty evident from this, that the framers were specifically limiting the umbra cast by the document they had created.
Personally, I think that the commerce clause has been neglected in that it ought to have been used to adamantly restrict the tendency of the banks and other corporations to grow, engulf and eliminate their competition, to the point where they are “too big to fail”.
Now Andy, tell me how the gov’t's treatment of GM’s bankruptcy has not violated the application of art1 sect 8′s “uniform laws on the subjest of Bankruptcies throughout the United States”?
I think that “to promote the general welfare” was intended to mean something quite different from “to provide for the beneral well-being”, which seems to be the intent of our current administration.