It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
The thought occurred while I was speeding through Akron, Ohio a couple of days ago about how to respond should one of Ohio's finest pull me over. Mind you, a truck governed at 60 mph doesn't get many chances to speed. So while blazing through a 55 mph zone with the defiance of Sammy Hagar and the speed of Grandma running late for bingo night, I determined how to respond if pulled over. "You see officer," I would droll, "the traffic law is a living, breathing document." The result? I'd get a ticket, a fine, perhaps even a good tasing depending on the persistence of my argument. That's when it occurred to me, ...this living breathing document business only goes one way.
We've all heard the audio recording of then Professor Obama lamenting the Constitution's framework of "negative rights." The Constitution failed, in Obama's estimation, to do certain things that he suggested government "must do." The President's remedy? Ignore the Constitution, of course. It's a living, breathing document anyway, subject to changing times and circumstances. In other words, it's meaningless.
Just ask Congressman Alcee Hastings, who famously said, "There are no rules. We make 'em up as we go along." Or for that matter, ask Allen Boyd, the Congressman from Florida's second district, who told his constituents that it is the judicial branch's job, not his, to determine the constitutionality of the laws he votes for.
I have to wonder though, do these officials expect the citizens to regard the laws they pass as casually as they themselves regard the Constitution? Do we get to take the pulse of a living, breathing individual mandate and decide it doesn't apply to us? Will the 16,000 new IRS agents created by the health care law acquiesce in our decision. Will we be relieved of the onerous burdens of cap and trade if we detect a rogue emanation from its penumbra? Can we ascertain a heretofore unknown right in the tax code to use Monopoly money to settle our debt on April 15th? If the 14th Amendment contained a previously unknown right to dismember a baby, surely there is some serious latitude in laws governing light bulbs and gallons per flush.
But I'm afraid such efforts, while intellectually consistent with the left's reading of the Constitution, would come to a bad end. The Constitution, which is the law of the land and the very foundation of our civil society, is a malleable thing in the liberal mind, easily contorted, like silly putty. But an edict specifying the maximum allowable diameter of the pipe going to your bathtub? That is a stone tablet from Mt. Sinai.
What we are dealing with is not so much a problem of elitistism, as one of hubris. There are elite sports teams, elite schools, elite military units, elite intellectuals, elites in almost every field of endeavor. It's when people presume to order the lives of others with no legal or ethical right to do so that the problem arises. And the error is compounded further when these people fashion themselves as elites, but in reality are little more than garden variety busy bodies of below average intelligence and above average arrogance. That, ultimately, is the root of despotism. In a few short days, we will uproot this idiocy before it completely undermines the constitutional foundation. Then, we can get about the business of a much needed restoration.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Fantastic post. A wonderful observation - well said. Thanks for this.
Jun '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
It's my contention that Americans are a law-abiding people because we judge our laws to be fair and equitable. As such, we don't have a problem with voluntary compliance. What the left fails to see is that when the rule of law is undermined, the only way to achieve "fairness" is to cheat the system. Socialism eventually makes lawbreakers of everyone. Capitalism then weighs in by creating black markets putting the real economy out of reach of government. But that's not the worst of it.
Given a few generations under a corrupted system, people become lawbreakers by habit. Take the case of Spanish mercantilism practiced from AD 1500 to about AD 1800. The system was designed to squeeze every ounce of wealth out of the Americas and into the hands of the Spanish crown. The result was institutional corruption, traffic in contraband, smuggling, and a reduction in the tax base. Latin America today remains mired in poverty and lawlessness because the system was founded on unfair and capricious laws from the start.
Need we make any further argument about the value of the rule of law?
May '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
"..the error is compounded further when these people fashion themselves as elites, but in reality are little more than garden variety busy bodies of below average intelligence and above average arrogance. That, ultimately, is the root of despotism"
Dave - What a perfectly phrased summary of the overbearing elites who wish to oppress us for own 'good'. I could work on the ideas presented in your posting above, but I would never be as witty nor as concise as you.
Edited on Oct 29, 2010 at 6:59amMay '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
One minor point Dave, in a few days we will begin the process of uprooting this idiocy. I pray that we develop the tenacity and focus to see the job through.
Paules, I agree that every ex colony of Spain has institutionalized corruption (I have worked in most of them) BUT there is one very notable exception: Chile. As a result it has the most dynamic economy and personal freedom on its continent. Perhaps part of this comes from the fact that it took the Spanish some 4-5 centuries to truly conquer it and significant pieces of it are harsh and unforgiving.
Oct '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Aren't members of Congress sworn in by stating that they swear to uphold the Constitution?
And then to claim that there are "no rules" governing them? I think every Congressman and Senator should be asked a question about whether their lawmaking is constrained by the Constitution or not.
If they answer "no" or "we can do what we want" or anything like that, they immediately lose their job.
Great post, Dave.
Jun '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
I wouldn't presume to know since I've never even been anywhere south of Venezuela in South America, but I've always been under the impression that the state of Chile's economy (since the 70s anyway) owed more to Milton Friedman than any other single influence. Is this too simplistic?
May '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Dave Carter:
What we are dealing with is not so much a problem of elitistism, as one of hubris. .. It's when people presume to order the lives of others with no legal or ethical right to do so that the problem arises. And the error is compounded further when these people fashion themselves as elites, but in reality are little more than garden variety busy bodies of below average intelligence and above average arrogance.
Wonderful summary, Dave, of why I feel compelled in all these discussions to put quotes around the word "elite" since it is only in media fantasies that this crowd warrants the term. They are perfectly common and expected, which is exactly why the Constitution includes all those restrictions beginning "Congress shall make no law..."
That people can describe our political leaders as an "elite" without eliciting laughter demonstrates that what is needed is less a political "realignment" than a wholesale constitutional refresher. Something vital and unique has been lost, or at least is threatened.
Jul '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Abominable that any POTUS can even think of the Constitution as not being the stability that keeps the country on course. Elite to the max - that is what we have voted into office at all levels. I constantly remind myself that all elected are meant to be citizen-representatives and I am a citizen too.
Dave, Even Average intelligence with above average arrogance is trouble when in an elected office!
After I 'early voted' I felt a spell of 'Remind the other voters to vote out the Pinheads but not the Patriots' coming over me. At least my Congressman understands and supports the living, breathing document---and he understand he is there to represent the constituency.
God Bless America. Keep feeding us, Dave
Oct '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Dave Carter:
Just ask Congressman Alcee Hastings, who famously said, "There are no rules. We make 'em up as we go along." Or for that matter, ask Allen Boyd, the Congressman from Florida's second district, who told his constituents that it is the judicial branch's job, not his, to determine the constitutionality of the laws he votes for.
That, ultimately, is the root of despotism. In a few short days, we will uproot this idiocy before it completely undermines the constitutional foundation. Then, we can get about the business of a much needed restoration.
Restoration is exactly the right word to use because the Constitution has been nullified by the elites. The political class kept the structural aspects such as when to hold elections, qualifications for office, etc, but destroyed everything else. They also added all sorts of things that are not present and never intended such as allowing the judicial branch to legislate.
The Bill of Rights has faired a bit better, but it's also suffered quite a bit of violence from the ruling class.
We're in a post-Constitutional era and it's our fault for tolerating people like Boyd and Hastings.
Jul '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Hopefully the trooper wouldn't regard the Ohio State Police use of force/Taser policy as a "living breathing document" as well.
Since it's unlikely he went to Harvard, you're probably safe. :)
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Good point, Wylee.
Jul '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Best post yet.
So many points.
Simply brilliant.
May '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
jimccogg, The people who ran the economic for Pinochet were called the Chicago Boys as they were trained/educated there. In addition, Friedman did advise them. The work they did in privatizing industries and creating the basic frameworks for the future, were key to the development of the last 20+ years under democracy.
Oct '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
The Pinochet dictatorship was sort of a different model that what we'd seen previously. Normally, your evil dictator type isn't very good at economics, but this was the rare case when the evil dictator decided he needed some proper economic advice.
Good for the long term prospects of the country, but if you were "disappeared", you probably weren't impressed with the University of Chicago aspect of the people who murdered you.
Oct '10
Re: It's Not Elitisim. It's Hubris.
Publius
but if you were "disappeared", you probably weren't impressed with the University of Chicago aspect of the people who murdered you. · Oct 30 at 5:08am
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. I think laizze faire economics stands in stark contrast to a centralized authoritarian dictatorship (Fiedman for legalizing drugs, volunteer draft, etc.) I think it would be more correct to say that liberty/freedom is at the center of laizze faire economics. It is more coherent to link leftism with coercive statism.
If you want to link UofC economics with Pinochet's murders, can I link leftist economics policies with the Shining Path? How many people did they murder? If you want to go outside of South America it is like shooting fish in a barrel (China, Soviet Union). With these two, statist economic policies led to the death of millions.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, the judiciary left want to consolidate policy in the Supreme Court. Conservatives, I believe, would rather see that power decentralized at the local/state level.
Edited on Nov 1, 2010 at 9:36am