Authored by William Robert Barber

About a hundred years ago the shift from the constitutional principles of federalism proceeded by the diminishment of the once strongly held belief in an individual’s sovereign self-reliance altered this nation’s populous from the ethos of rugged individualism to one of dependency. This altered attitude was tethered (by both majority parties) to an infatuation with the promises of progressivism — at the time considered a mild-moderate sort of socialism. It was during this initial period of progressive flirtation that the meaningfulness of the Commerce Act was reinterpreted and expanded to include, as President Wilson emphasized, “to comprehend the demands of social justice.”

From early 1900’s onward the diminishment of the heretofore American ethos has effectually abated, even misconstrued the traditional virtue and cultural-prominence of American individualism; indeed, in the present progressives think of federalism and existentialism as quaint remembrances of a bucolic and unsophisticated America.

When the people renounced the spirit of Patrick Henry’s declaration of liberty and placed their fate and fortune into the hands of ‘those who know best.’ As exampled by the present cadre of policy wonks, the academia enriched know-it-alls, progressive elitists, and those elected representatives who are determined to retain power till death. Before too long the federal government assumed (with the blessings of the people) the assumptive role as the inclusive source of coercive omnipotence. The diminishment of American individual and cultural traditions were forever replaced and usurped with the direct help of the judiciary aided by a federal government composite that presented itself as the supreme entity of bureaucratic preeminence. The popular acceptance of an ever-growing system of governing bureaucracy necessitated the only compatible symbiosis: Centralized authority. This is the very type of governing authority that adamantly opposes and is intrinsically hostile to the constitutional premise of federalism.   

The federal government has successfully quieted the original interpretation of the constitution and in doing so preserved its coercive omnipotence of federal authority. Nonetheless, it’s, doing business as, a “nanny state,” does have far reaching societal implications. The “nanny State” inherently must raise and re-raise expectations to those who have less. Contrastingly, those that have more, the very ones that the government relies on to pay the taxes to satisfy those who have less counter the “nanny State” distribution of wealth by not investing capital. The result of less capital investment means real opportunity for employment by those who have less-lessens.  Anxiety by both groups grow; the elected panic and print more money. Inflation is inevitably the result devastating those that have less.

Speculatively, would the progressive politician then appeal to those that have less for the nationalization of key resources?  

In today’s election environment, a significant percentage of today’s voters are actually contemplating their personal economic viability and linking their vote on to the Democratic Party’s promise (as if more money is simply a matter of enhance taxation) of more government support, aid, and or cash equivalence. As if an addiction there are a number of Americans that rely on a daily injection of government assistance. We Americans have become so dependent on government doing all the thinking “we the people” have a hard time functioning as self-sufficient peoples.

Is it possible, that the American people might go into withdrawal symptoms that mimic heroin addiction? A real time example of a withdrawal symptom is the horrific dynamics playing out in Greece. The Greek peoples’ reaction to fiscal austerity was prompted by the numbing effectual of a “nanny State’s” legacy of corruptive governance.  Will Americans burn down and destroy private and public property when those who are promised more are, in some finality real or imagined, denied their more?

The election 2012 is a pivotal benchmark; the result will be a definitive measure of American’s sense of common sensibility. If Obama’s dismal presidential record is reelected to another four years then the coalition of special interest: Unions, those that pay no federal income tax, the ethnic voters, youth, progressive ideologues, and the abundantly naive have successfully put the round into the square.

I voted yesterday, my voice was registered and counted… 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s