Matt Yglesias is upset and considers America to be “ungovernable” because Obama can’t just wave his hand and have his agenda pass without opposition:
We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.
No, it doesn’t. What we have is a system that protects itself from the whims of fanciful, but ill-considered change.
The guardian has also taken up the cause of whining about America’s “broken” system, which just refuses to allow the immediate and thoughtless adoption of a sweeping, radical agenda.
This is not Latin America, where any colorful demagogue can rise to power and immediately reshape an entire nation in his imagine. Where Matt Yglesias and the hard-left see a bug, those more concerned about the nature of American democracy than the ability to ram through radical legislation see a feature.
The Senate is the only body in the government which protects minority rights from the trampling of the majority. It was designed specifically for that purpose, and although the nature of how it does so has changed, it continues to serve that purpose today. We should not undo our governing model on the basis of the dictatorial impulses of Matt Yglesias.
Comments
Print This Post
One of the most disgraceful episodes in American foreign policy has come to an end. Intent on destroying Honduran democracy, President Barack Obama sided with fellow leftwing thug Manuel Zelaya after he was legally removed from office for trying to subvert his nation’s democracy (follow the whole episode here).
Thanks to intense pressure and bullying from our contemptible government, along with the rest of the world’s thuggish dictators like Hugo Chavez, the interim government of Honduras, which sought only to survive until scheduled elections this month, has caved and allowed for the possibility of Zelaya’s return.
“Tonight I am pleased to announce that … I authorized my negotiating team to sign a final accord that marks the beginning of the end to the political situation in the country,” interim President Roberto Micheletti said in a televised address.
The agreement appears to soften Micheletti’s previous stance that the Supreme Court — which has already rejected Zelaya’s reinstatement — decide the issue.
Instead, the high court would make a recommendation, but the final decision would be left to a vote in Congress.
Sanity and the rule of law may yet prevail if their Congress, like their Supreme Court, rejects this bullying. And bullying is obviously what led Micheletti into the deal, as his primary motivation is undoing the damage outside thugs are trying to do to the people of Honduras:
Micheletti called the pact a “significant concession” on his part. He also said that one of the provisions of the pact requires foreign powers to drop sanctions and reverse aid cutoffs imposed after the coup, and send observers to the upcoming elections.
This White House has done everything it can to restore the thug to power. It has revoked the visas of all members of the Honduran Supreme Court, stirred up international pressure, revoked aid, installed sanctions and just generally opposed democracy. Micheletti’s primary concern appears to be the people of Honduras and democracy. The primary concern of Barack Obama is protecting leftist strongmen. Disgraceful.
Thugs of the world, unite!
Print This Post
While in Ghana, President Barack Obama had this to say:
No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves — (applause) — or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. (Applause.) No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top — (applause) — or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.
I’m sure the businesses right here in America would love it if the United States government could limit itself to only taking 20% off the top.
Comments Print This Post
Check out my article at the American Thinker, which looks at the situation in Honduras and the disgraceful nature of the response from the international community.
More on Honduras:
Honduras’ non-coup – Miguel Estrada in the LA Times
It Wasn’t A ‘Coup’ – Juan Carlos Hidalgo of the Cato Institute
Print This Post
Although their exact characteristics vary from instance to instance, dictatorships tend to have a number of features in common. One such feature is the confusion of the head of state for the nation itself. In this view, the welfare and success of the country is inextricably tied to the welfare and success of the leader. It is convenient for dictators to foster this belief, as it ties the well-being of the individual citizen to the success of the leader via the welfare of the nation. The individual need not even consider what specifically the leader is doing. Whatever it is, he must succeed.
I am saddened to see an elected official promoting such illiberal and undemocratic views right here in America:
“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”
Barack Obama is a politician. He is not the United States of America.
Comments Print This Post
The media says yes. Tales of the Honduran coup are all over the major media outlets. They are cheerfully repeating the claims of leftist Latin America leaders like Hugo Chavez, that President Zelaya was ousted in a “coup.” A superficial understanding of the fact, that the military removed him from office, certainly supports this claim. A closer inspection of the events that led up to Zelaya’s ouster, however, suggests that what transpired was actually a defense of democracy against the assault of a power hungry populist leftist.
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
After the would be dictator was ousted, the military promptly stepped aside and allowed the political branches to follow the proper protocol in replacing Zelaya. The Congress, after voting to remove Zelaya, subsequently replaced him in a manner “mandated by the constitution.” This is not the stuff of coups.
Dr. Palmer observes:
Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?
Meanwhile, while Obama felt that even rhetoric would constitute “meddling” in Iran, his White House has put considerable effort into first defending and now restoring to power a would-be leftist dictator. Where are his priorities?
Update: Heritage has more.
Comments Print This Post
Obama said in Cairo he supports the promotion and advancement of democracy. His actions suggest otherwise:
Five Cuban dissidents who have collectively spent decades in jail for their pro-democracy activities were given a top award by the National Endowment for Democracy last night. But, unlike in past years, their representative was not invited to the White House, organizers said.
Carl Gershman, president of the endowment, said the organization asked two weeks ago whether President Obama could meet with Bertha Antúnez, the sister of one of the dissidents, who was picking up the award on their behalf. Gershman said he never got a response. It was the first time in five years that the president had not met with the winner of the Democracy Award, according to the endowment, which is funded by Congress.
“I am disappointed, and also surprised since the President said in the campaign that Libertad would be the touchstone on his Cuba policy,” Gershman said in an e-mail, using the Spanish word for “liberty.”
Chairman Zero doesn’t care about democracy and freedom in America, so why should we expect him to anywhere else?
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
