Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Petitioning the Sovereign
I confess I haven’t really been following the whole Michelle Obama school lunch thing. I get the gist: The First Lady has the USDA revise the standards to make them healthier, but the new guidelines are unrealistic, so kids don’t eat the food (with all the attendant behavioral consequences), and schools complain. I figured that eventually reality will win out over this instance of leftist dogmatism, so why bother paying attention?
Today though, Bridget Johnson at PJ Media had an article that made me do a double-take. The background: Congress is working on a bill to give school districts more flexibility, and Mrs. Obama doesn’t like it. (Again, nothing really surprising here; call me when the USDA loses this fight to the 5th graders.) Mrs. Obama explained her motivation:
Michelle Obama… said at a roundtable yesterday with school leaders and nutrition experts that “so many kids write me every day” about the “health crisis in this country.”
This would be unremarkable, except for way the Republican bill works:
“It’s really not opt out. They’re granted a one-year waiver. And it’s only for the schools that are finding it hard to meet,” Rep. Robert Aderholt told CNN….
“This is saying if you’re having a problem, that you can ask for a waiver and the USDA can grant you a waiver.”
So let’s get this straight: The peasants petition the queen to do something about the health crisis. So the king’s ministers issue a decree that must be followed by all the country’s schools throughout the land. And the GOP response? To mitigate the decree, local schools can petition the king’s ministers for a one-year deferral.
What happened to local control of schools? Why can’t local citizens fix their own school lunch problems? And why is the USDA taking direction from the First Lady, who has no constitutional authority? And what happened to the idea of laws duly passed by the legislature, that apply equally to all?
And finally: Is this why we elected Tea Partiers to congress in 2010 and 2012 — to ratify the legitimacy of an arbitrary, centralized regulatory authority?
The institutions of the Republic still operate, but some days it seems to me as if we no longer live under a republican form of government.
Published in General
Yes, that’s a funny video. But it’s funny, not a statement of the Democratic party platform, or of Obama’s domestic policy (whatever it is). And although it probably is more serious, and effective, than Obama’s foreign policy initiatives of late.
I happen to believe that Michelle Obama is an intrusive scold who doesn’t like this country at all. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she is, as you seem to be implying in your ‘two Presidents for the price of one’ example, floated as a Presidental candidate in her own right, a few years from now. Heaven forfend.
Giving these people an inch, so that they can take a few miles (or as they probably perceive it, globally-correct, and not imperialistic, kilometers) is a mistake. We don’t have to nasty about it. We just don’t have to fold at every opportunity.
The wee Sisyphus’ have been bag lunch students with the odd hiccup of the littlest Sisyphus, wh0 discovered pizza Fridays and ate the cafeteria pizza on Friday. Then he discovered private sector pizza, and so now turns his nose up at the cafeteria offering as grossly inferior.
I included it as a reminder of Obama’s 2008 statements, but I’m happy to retreat to “the country knowingly voted for this in 2012”.
Two Presidents for the price of one was a line that Clinton stole in 1992 from Texas ex-Governor James Fergerson, whose wife ran for governor because he was an ineligible felon (two governors for the price of one). The line signifies that there would be two people in the executive mansion conducting policy; it does not refer to future runs.
I agree that Michelle Obama is an unpatriotic and intrusive scold. The first time she was proud line remains one of the worst uttered by an American politician. Thankfully, I don’t think she can run. Clinton’s probably spoiled the wife thing for her, she’s too nakedly progressive, and Barack won’t inspire Clintonian nostalgia for good times.
I also agree that we shouldn’t engage in appeasement. We should, though, sometimes reach for the possible. This isn’t an issue that’s going away, and we should have more power soon.
We’re not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Please refer to us as such. Again, ad nauseum, we are not a democracy. Thank you.
This simply isn’t true. America is not a direct democracy, and it is a representative republic, but it is also a representative democracy, a democratic republic. “Republic” and “democracy” are not incompatible, but mutually supporting ideas; the lack of a monarch removes a limit to the extent of democracy.
The people really do decide who runs the country, with relatively short terms. Americans elect not merely one tier of government, but local, state, and federal governments. They elect executives, legislators, and often subordinate executives and judges, and can ratify Constitutional Amendments by convention and often pass referenda and recalls. The franchise is broad. America is not merely a democracy, but a paradigmatic example of democracy.
What happened to local control of schools? Why can’t local citizens fix their own school lunch problems?
You’re kidding, right? Federal money and unions control the “public” schools. They are closed systems. Local control is a fantasy.
Heckuva job there, Shelly:
…Los Angeles Unified, the nation’s second-largest school system, which serves 650,000 meals a day. Students throw out at least $100,000 worth of food a day — and probably far more, according to estimates by David Binkle, the district’s food services director. That amounts to $18 million a year — based on a conservative estimate of 10% food waste…. But under federal school meal rules finalized in 2012, Parrish and other students must take at least three items — including one fruit or vegetable — even if they don’t want them. Otherwise, the federal government won’t reimburse school districts for the meals.
— http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-lausd-waste-20140402-story.html#page=1
There’s still a fair amount of state diversity. Of particular relevance is school choice. If you’re at a charter or parochial school, you’ll often find that there’s a high degree of control from institutions other than the Feds, although the Feds are not unimportant there, either.
It is my impression that Barack Obama has lost some weight since he became president (and he was pretty trim to begin with). I wonder what it must be like to be married to Michelle, especially at the dinner table. If she is doing this to the entire nation, she must be keeping a short leash on her family in relation to what they are allowed to eat. Would you like to be her child? Ugh.
You’re confused. Again. Because we have a vote does that not mean we are a democracy. You actually laid out a great defense for us being not a democracy but a representative republic. Congratulations! You should do well to remember. In the future JoE, we are a Representative Republic.
What dictionary or encyclopedia are you using? What philosopher or political theorist? The Oxford English and Websters both include representative democracies within the meaning of democracy.
You appear to be distinguishing between “republic” and “democracy”, and I responded by noting that those are definitions that address different things, and outlined what those things are. Your response has been to repeat that the distinction exists. Perhaps it would be more helpful to outline in what way the lack of a monarch prevents one from having a democracy than simply to restate it.
Hello James. That didn’t take long.
Let’s start with RedState shall we. Or Merriam-Webster for that matter.
I do prefer the RedState def. You? I do think it’s most appropriate. I know it’s not exactly the Oxford English whatever. But, perhaps this will give you insight into the subtleties. It can’t be easy, coming from a monarchy.
That’s the M-W definition of “Republic”. We agree that the US is a republic. Go back to that link and look up “Democracy” and you will find “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting”. Because, you see, republicanism and democracy are not incompatible, but rather tend to go hand in hand.
The Redstate blog post by “conservativekaren” cites no sources; it’s only link is to Saul Alinsky. It discusses no history, no philosophy. It merely states its authors view on her own authority.
I forget if you’re Catholic; might this discussion of the history of Catholic definitions interest you? I extract a quote ” 3. The people organize themselves into a political body and choose representatives through universal suffrage. These representatives debate, reflect and decide by a majority vote.”
Our belle Michelle needs to lose 40 lbs so she has zero credibility with me in this department. It amazes me that overweight people are the most obsessive about food and food portions.
Why is there even a post on Ricochet about this ?