Obami and Congressional Democrats no longer function rationally

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with the Obami and the Congressional Democrats.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are just all too human and are living out that saying that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  In this case, the corruption isn’t necessarily monetary (although that’s there too).  Instead, it’s a rot of the soul; an inability to confront the reality of actual governance, and a desire, instead, to live in a fantasy world.

As I read the stories about Dems lately, I keep thinking of Nero.  When Nero first become Emperor in Rome (54 A.D.), he was a golden boy.  He was handsome and charming.  Initially, he decreased corruption and increased freedom in Rome.  Eventually, however, unfettered power led Nero to unfettered acts of insane cruelty and murder.  There was nothing to stop him, so he became unstoppable.  (Leaders ranging from Caligula, to Mao, to Mugabe, to Kim Jong-Il are also nices example of the dangers of having unlimited power vested in a single person/group.)

I see the same thing going on in Washington.  The Democrats control completely both the executive and legislative branches.  Procedurally, there is nothing to stop them.  What should be stopping them, of course, is harsh reality:  the unyielding laws of economics, the increased arrogance of our enemies, and the growing disaffection of the voters.  But the Democrats, drunk on unlimited power, cannot stop themselves.  Indeed, our arrogant president, despite having accomplished nothing but emboldening our enemies, cheerfully awarded himself a B+ in governance.  There’s delusion for you.

Despite the fact that the voters are turning against government health care in droves, the Democrats are bound and determined to pass it.  Despite the fact that more and more evidence is appearing to show that the climate change “science” is corrupt, politically-driven voodoo, the Democrats insist on destroying our economy to meet illusive and impossible climate goals.  And most recently, despite the fact that a respected bipartisan economic organization is stating that the debt path the Democrats are pursuing is unsustainable, the Democrats won’t be stopped there either:

After passing a $447 billion spending bill Sunday, Congress faces a Jan. 1 deadline to raise the ceiling on the national debt even as a bipartisan expert panel warned Monday that the United States faces a potential funding crisis.

The Peterson-Pew Commission, composed of former members of Congress and budget experts, warned that the federal budget has reached a danger zone much faster than anticipated even a year ago. Like a homeowner swimming in mortgage debt, the government’s bills are growing faster than its income, to the point where overseas investors holding U.S. debt could be spooked at any moment.

“The long-run future is upon us,” said former Clinton administration budget chief Alice Rivlin. Bush administration debt, rapidly escalating health care costs, a deep recession that has slashed tax revenue, and record government spending this year on a $787 billion stimulus and a $700 billion bank rescue have, she said, “raised the debt very, very rapidly, to nervous-making levels.”

Still, Democratic leaders in Congress and the Obama administration contend that joblessness is the more important problem now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to pass a new jobs package this week as part of the $626 billion defense bill, including an extension of benefits for the unemployed and new infrastructure spending.

Obama economic adviser Christina Romer said it would be “suicidal” to cut spending with the unemployment rate above 10 percent. Economic growth is the best remedy to the deficit, they argue.

When it comes to the deficit, the closest analogy I can think of is a deranged physician who gives a person with a bad flu a toxic doses of chemotherapy on the principle that the chemotherapy will cure what ails him.   The best thing for the patient would be to fall ill rapidly, go to another doctor, and immediately have the medicine withdrawn.  The worst thing would be for the steady drip of the chemo to debilitate the patient so slowly that, by the time he realizes what’s wrong, it’s too late — he’s as good as dead.

The same holds true for us.  Because of the Democrats’ hubris, the American people are swiftly wising up to the appalling damage the Democrats are inflicting on our nation, both economically and in terms of national security.  That’s good because, in theory, that means we’re like the patient who got a second opinion quickly, rather than dying slowly.  However, the election process means that, even though we know we’re being grossly mistreated, we can’t do anything about it until November 2010.  This question, then, is whether we can survive that long without dying first.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    I think that there are a number of things at work here, Book. Here’s some observations that I would like to enter into the discussion:
    1) Your stated observation that “Liberals first come to conclusions and then peddle them as facts” certainly holds. In this case, the conclusion is that health care reform will be good for us even if we are too stupid to appreciate it .
    2) An inability to think through consequences: Liberal/Dems are about the “Big Idea”, the vision thing: they are totally unable to think through consequences. Liberals emote, conservatives think.
    3) Michael Savage’s (a man I despise, by the way) has stated that “Liberalism is a mental disorder”. As Einstein defined insanity as do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result applies to the Demorat /Left’s obsession with socialism and nationalized healthcare, I believe he is spot on!
    4) Hubris: a comment that I have heard the Liberal/Dems make repeatedly is that they want to be ‘transformational”: they want to be remembered as FDR was remembered for social security. However, this is dangerous for them: I forget which of the Nazi leaders (Himmler?) was quoted as saying of the Holocaust, “If we succeed, we shall be viewed as the saviors of humanity, if we fail we shall be reviled forever”. Detecting a whiff of panic in the ranks, I think that Pelosi/Reid/Obama are at the point where they are beginning to realize that if they fail, they will lose their transformational control of government and be reviled for a very, very long time. If, on the other hand,  their healthcare “reforms” pass, they will have full credit for being transformational and it will be up to future generations to take the blame for its failure. Incidentally, I believe that it is this fear of failure that will lead them to use every tactic they can to queer the next two election cycles to ensure their hold on power.
    Here is one very big concern that I have about the national debt that these yahoos are racking up: the last time this happened was during WWII. However, as one who has worked with corporate finance, I know that more important than a company’s debt is a company’s debt capacity. We were able to enter and fight WWII because the nation had the ability to raise the money to finance the fight, although it almost bankrupted us and our allies. This time, I fear, we will face with an existential international crisis (the Obama administration seems to be working hard to manufacture one) without the means to finance the defense of our country.
    Then again, maybe that is what the Code Pink  Left has wanted all along.

  • suek

    I don’t remember if this link has already been planted somewhere on another thread, but whether it has or has not, it’s still relevant…

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I am curious why you despise Michael Savage.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Because, YM, I think Savage is a crank who says things just to get people riled.
    He embodies the same character defects that I associate with people on the Left: he exudes envy when he denigrates his competitors (like Hannity “the Leprechaun”) or Rush “Bimbo” and attacks the way they look instead of what they say; he demagogues issues by appealing to peoples’ worst instincts (w/regard to the Middle East and Muslims, although he will contradict himself in the same breath), he attacks peoples’ character when they hold believes contrary to his. His attacks on G.W. Bush’s motives were inexcusable, even if he did not agree with all that Bush did, as I didn’t, you don’t have to attack another person’s character and motives…or concider the venom he throws at people that disagree with him. I can go on and on and on!
    Savage isn’t a conservative. He might be somewhat Libertarian but mainly I view him as a crank, throwing spit-flecked invective at the world in a rage that is as much schtick as professed. Sometimes, I listen to Savage when there’s nothing else on the radio but I never turn off Savage feeling that I have been educated or enlightened the way that I do with talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Medved, Hewitt, Ingraham and others. Frankly, he makes us look bad.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Of course he isn’t a conservative.  I heard him say on AM radio that Congress critters must send their own blood overseas to have a legitimate reason to go to war.

    As if any parent has a right to decide what their child will or will not risk their lives for. That’s not parental notification, it’s age of legal consent issues. Past 18, you can still be told by your parent what to do and whom to kill, I suppose, in Savage’s eyes. Not conservative, of course.
    When people adopt brain dead Leftist propaganda and actually believe in it, they got worst problems than their politics.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Amen, YM. You and I agree.