Debunking Flood's column on democracy

A rebuttal to a letter from Oct 1, “Right wing talks about democracy, doesn’t believe in it” by Don Flood

OK, so E.B. White could write better than he could think on his feet. He defined democracy badly, although he was almost right - democracy is majority rule, but all the time. That is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers detested democracy, and decided to give us a Constitutional Representative Republic instead. If World War II was fought for White’s definition, we probably would have lost the war. And if even you recognized White’s “non-clarion call to war,” but that the fascists and communists had great slogans; and you have been ok with that logic for so many years, perhaps, some pretty sloppy thinking there?

The idea of democracy as individual freedom in the face of murderous tyranny, helping defend one of our staunchest allies (England), and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor - those were motives enough for most of us. Americans didn’t fight for majority rule, as you state; but because of the reasons above, and the additional reason of keeping the European and the Asian expansionist wars from reaching our own shores.

The world has changed greatly since then, but human nature and conservative principles have not. Hard-line Republicans (Tea Party conservatives?) no longer believe in democracy, America, and the Constitution? Sure we do. But you must be a bit more careful about defining your words, otherwise we aren’t necessarily talking about the same things. Democracy, not as mob rule, but as individual freedom. America, not as a people’s democracy (which we are now closer to than ever before), but as a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution, not as an ignored or perverted piece of parchment; but as a fixed standard of measure, guiding the country.

The Constitution is not a “living document;” it should not be privy to the whims or interpretations of presidents, legislators or judges. Yes, even Supreme Court judges are not infallible, and do not have the right to be final arbiters of the Constitution (Judicial Supremacy is a false premise), and so there is a problem with Justice Robert’s convoluted and tortured reasoning (and you should be troubled by it too). The Affordable Care Act was never a centerpiece of either of Obama’s campaigns. I bet you remember “Hope and Change” in the first campaign, and how dems were distancing themselves from the ACA anchor in the second? And I’m sure you haven’t forgotten how the ACA was “deemed to pass” by one party, and all the arm-twisting and bribery it required. I’m sure you recall how “we had to pass it, to find out what was in it” and that no one read it. You might even have heard that the law is 2700-plus pages and has 20,000 pages of regulations (and counting). And you do remember all the exemptions and waivers given to unions, large companies and Congress, right? Did you not realize that ACA is a 15 percent government solution forced onto 100 percent of the people?

About 85 percent of Americans were fairly happy with their insurance, but to cover a few more millions of uninsured, government had to cover all of us their way? That doesn’t bother you? The law is not improvable; it is unfixable and must eventually be repealed and replaced. The fact that the government can now decide when, or even if, you can have medical treatment, or some expensive drug, or a certain surgery, instead of your doctor; doesn’t scare the hell out of you? This is people control and nothing more. It needs to be dismantled just as surely as slavery finally was. I don’t understand why you would defend it. And what happened to your sense of fairness for all citizens?

The House of Representative has passed a budget which funded all of the government, except for the ACA. It is the Democrats who couldn’t wait to shut the government down. There’s a disagreement between the two parties, and the Republicans are trying to negotiate.

But if they try to bargain with the Dems, they are “blackmailing” them? If the Dems have shut down the government and think they are winning the public relations battle, and they won’t come to the table or debate any of the republican’s proposals, the dems are being “exceptionally kind”? You don’t find that kind of thinking conspicuously one-sided? You have a twisted mind, sir.

If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, the country could default, and a default would have very serious consequences, here as well as worldwide. But if we default, it will be because Obama decides to do it. He may be impeached, should he allow that to happen; but more than likely, the chaos created around the world will force world leaders to call for his head, if they don’t put an international contract out on him. The slimdown is a partial (17 percent) shutdown, and the government is still collecting at least 2.5T in taxes.

The debt interest is about $237M (just over 10 percent of $2.5T). The president will likely prioritize the debt payments, the Social Security payments, military payments, and Medicare and Medicaid payments. There certainly will be hardships, but those basic payments will be met, and there will be additional money left for prioritizing other payments. Raising the debt ceiling is mostly for continued new spending on dubious projects.

I find it remarkable that you and the left are so concerned about default, but not so much about a $17T debt that is now greater than our Gross National Product, or adding a new entitlement (ACA) to our already overburdened economy. These entitlements together, along with corporate welfare, foreign aid to our enemies, and the preposterous out-of-control spending, can only hasten the day of reckoning.

You do understand that once we go belly-up, we will not be able to help a single soul, deserving or not; won’t be able to stop the utter chaos, and the struggle to survive among friends and neighbors, as they kill each other over scarce resources; the destruction of the country; the inability to defend ourselves from both internal and external forces, right? But a false narrative about default worries you?

Romney’s 47 percent remark should have been, if people like you and the media would stop spinning, a rebuke of the Obama economy (or lack thereof). To say that the Tea Party will raise that 47 percent by tens of percentage points shows complete and willful ignorance of what limited federal government is all about, or how the Republicans would attack such a problem.

It makes sense to you that anyone (even the Tea Party) could dissolve all safety nets, and forced charity overnight? Obama spouts that kind of rhetoric all day long, everyday. What I have trouble with, is a fairly bright guy like you buying it.

Even those Tea Party “extremists” would have sense enough to create a business-friendly environment to expand the economy and create jobs first, before weaning as many off government handouts and dependency as possible, gradually.

Although we have different belief systems, we are just as human as you, love our countrymen and our country, and wish to see all prosper. It may make you feel superior to demonize us, but you are hurting the country and dividing this country when you do so.

We would love to form our own party, but you know that is impossible right now. That would split the Republican vote and the Dems would sail through for a few more election cycles. That would allow the Dems to complete the “fundamental transformation” of the U.S. and destroy the country. But thanks for the advice; maybe someday.

But allow me to suggest some advice to you. Whether or not you have ever been on jury duty, it is you’re profound and sacred duty to give the defendant as fair a trial as possible. I don’t believe anyone would listen only to the prosecutor make the case against the defendant, as well as for the defendant. The prosecutor’s case for the defendant simply would not be believable, nor should it be.

America is and always has been a battleground of ideas. We have never been afraid of them, and have always been able to judge ideas on their merits. But it is important to get the defense’s view from the defense. This is the only way to make an intelligent decision, or have an intelligent conversation.

It is very difficult to deal with ideas that are hidden and twisted, with dishonesty and hyperbole, with hidden agendas and lies. Any true research must come from the source, not some third party’s opinion, deliberate spin, or accidental reinterpretation. Without research and argumentation, you are merely spouting trivialities, and honest and knowledgeable folk can spot you a mile away.

Armand Carreau
Bridgeville