an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each
I have been noodling on the phrase “social contract” for quite some time ever since Elizabeth Warren had her misbegotten rant denigrating capitalism and entrepreneurship and defending taxation as “part of the social contract”. The problem is, who really knows what the “social contract” really is? Let’s narrow it down further – what is it now, what did it use to be, and what should it be in the future?
And who put this contract up for debate, and how come I’m held to it even as others change the rules? What – no choice for an opt out? And why do the Libs
Sort of rhetorical questions, but Warren’s assertion is that “the social contract” allows and demands for all she believes is right, but also holds what the entrepreneur believes is wrong. Thus, it seems, it is a one way agreement: a liberal can claim that it provides for all kinds of social programs (and in effect, pushing that government programs are now necessary for it to be complete, and the wealth extraction from one set of citizens that is necessary to accomplish it). Yet, when a Conservative begins to talk about “the social contract”, they are hooted from the room and there is no discussion that, like Government, the reach of “the social contract” is ever being extended (or over extended)? I used to think that it included (in no particular order) following the laws, paying your taxes, being nice to your neighbors, pay your taxes, be helpful to your community if led to be so (or, at least cause no harm), and that government would excel in what it should do and be frugal (e.g., don’t waste my money). Oh yeah, and leave me alone to make my own decisions instead of telling me what to do all the time (after all, I’m an adult). But remember, to a Liberal, it IS a one way agreement.
Problem is, my sense is now, the social contract is now quantity over quality, the American propensity to throw money at any problem has gone on steroids, and that any attempt to hold those programs accountable for results actually results in jeers thrown to the like of “what, you hate the poor, blacks, gays, browns, Latinos, or <name your least favorite Democrat identity group here>? Shame on you, you cold hearted, uncaring Neanderthal! YOU are stopping us from Progressing forward!”. In essence, they are using the social contract not as an agreement but as a club – with a nail in it that sticks out. And Lord help a Conservative involved in the Legislative process trying to hold to what we thought was the social contract when trying to keep Govt small enough to fulfill our version of “the social contract” – after all, we believe that people can fulfill such a “contract” and does not require an activist, intrusive Govt.
Oh, that compromise word? That brings me to the next point – when a Republican gives the Dems a loophole – and NH GOP Treasurer Robert Scott seemingly has done just that. From the UL’s State House Dome:
From the UL’s State House Dome:
Dr. Robert Scott, a former Newport state representative and current State Republican Party treasurer, has a new book out, “Thinking Beyond Gridlock,” and a new pledge he would like the presidential candidates to sign.
The pledge is to bring “a new spirit of civility, effective dialogue, compromise, consensus and results to the office of the President of the United States. This will create opportunity and growth.”
Sure thing, sport. Nice words, nice attitude, but if you really evaluate from the NH GOP Republican platform, he is setting up and demanding that his own Party (in which he is an elected officer) for more failure by compromising its principles. Sure, go ahead and make kumbaya and continue to advocate that other Republicans work with those whose only intent is to move your goalpost Leftward – that’ll be JUST spiffy, dude! Feel free to make a mockery of one of the prime tenets of Republicanism – small government (as the Left will NOT willingly agree to make govt smaller just to achieve “consensus“). Take another pillar, that of individualism over collectivism of the Left – I already gave you a good example of effective dialog earlier – talk to Chuckie Schumer, I dare you).
Sidebar: Yo, and if you think civility is high on the priority list of Progressives, you need to call Sarah Palin. Heck, talk to Obama (you know, he of the words that Republicans want “let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance’… So far I’m feeling better about my plan.””
Scott asks the candidates to stop the rhetoric and start discussing issues the public wants to hear about.
And this brings up the tri-divide:
- The Progressives and their “gimme” groupies want to hear “and we will tax the rich more and redistribute more”
- The TEA Party (you know, the folks that paved the way for the Republican wins nationally AND HERE IN NH) want less govt (the exact opposite of the above).
- And silly Republicans that go for the “appeasement vote”
To date, Scott says, he has had a few nibbles, but no signatures. “Who is going to be that little boy in the story ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’ who stands up and says ‘Something is wrong.’?”
No kidding? Most Republicans this past cycle had one thing in mind – roll back as much as possible any gain that the Socialist movement has gotten under Obama, and then some. That has not changed – has Scott actually been listening the past two years???? What Republican is going to campaign on the idea of “hey, let’s go to the middle!” – especially when the middle has already moved far left to what it was (Or is the good doctor in favor of Obamacare??). In fact, with the passage of Obamacare, the next step is to go more Left – is it Dr. Scott’s new position that we should compromise on the middle ground between socialist healthcare and something even worse??? Because, according to what has been reported of his book and its intent, that is EXACTLY what is being stated.
The country needs to return to what made it great, he said, noting he has traveled around the world and seen how well U.S. competitors are doing in the emerging markets.
He is right here – but does he ask WHEN was it great? In the past, obviously. Ask yourself – and how meddlesome was Government when we “were great”? Ya think that perhaps that has had something to do with it? With the massive amount of regulation, nationalization of industries (or effective nationalization even if the ownership has not yet changed hands), taxation policies, and the absolute acrimony towards capitalism by Obama and all of his minions, the answer is close to the end of his nose. And no, compromise, dialog and civility isn’t going to do a darn thing to bring greatness back.
“Gridlock is not just in cars or on the roads, it’s in our thinking, our politics and culture. That is why we are in decline, why there is a malaise, and it’s getting worse,” Scott said.
At this point, he’s totally misguided. Gridlock, at this point in time, is a feature and not a bug. I can be dismissed as some right wing loon of a blogger, but WHY would I want Govt to become “unstuck” and allow the Progressives to continue to move our Republic ever Leftward? The Founders DELIBERATELY made our system of checks and balances such that things WOULD be hard to accomplish – their wisdom was to set one set of processes against another in order to make sure progress was slow or stopped on stuff that should not become law. And again I ask – what IS the definition of progress, as in “what is the end goal”? Progressives want the Administrative State of technocrats designing and implementing a perfect utopia, providing security for all (“we don’t need no stinkin’ democracy!”). Conservatives and Libertarians was the original intent of Govt – protect our rights and act as a neutral referee on contracts, leaving the heavy lifting to the States for all but the specifically enumerated powers.
Right now, gridlock is the ONLY way to stop the leftward drift, especially with the seemingly acquienscence of folks like Robert Scott all too willing to give up on the latter notion simply to be seen as “polite”. Frankly, I have another term for it: Chamberlinism. That’s the wing of the Republican I categorize as all too willing to seek “consensus” with Progressives of the other Party but all too willing to wage war with Conservatives within their own.
And folks wonder why Newt has been rising in the polls? And that Trump had a brief shot of fame? Simple, actually very simple: Trump took it to the enemies of Liberty and freedom (Obama) and Newt is willing to go into the lions’ den and unsheathed his rhetorical sword and is waging battle with the real enemy – something the appeasement wing of the Republican Party is horrified over.
One in four Americans lives in poverty or is unemployed, under-employed or in under-utilized employment, he said. “No one wants to recognize this. When are we going to own up to it? When it’s one in three?” Scott said.
What planet is this guy living on? The Republicans have been POUNDING on this for, well, since Obama’s Porkulus failed to keep his promise of lower unemployment. Senator Marco Rubio has often said “we need more taxpayers!” to highlight the Dems statement that unemployment payments will get the economy going. I’m sorry, but this is just so clueless to actual reality from our side, one has to ask “Hey guy, have you listened to ANY of the Prez debates, even one of the 16”? EVERY debate, this has come up. The web is full of such talk (pssst – it even makes it into the MSM from time to time).
When he met the people in Qatar recently, Scott said, they were what people were like in American 40 or 50 years ago. He compared that to what happens today at the local high school and said, “What have we done? Unless we are willing to change, our quality of life will diminish and diminish.”
Well, he has half of the solution right. Certainly the culture of self-responsibility, hard work, and not being a burden on others has been diminished. We have been out- pop cultured since the 60’s – and as Obama’s Pastor Wright famously proclaimed “the chickens have come home to roost” – just not the way he meant it. Back that, from a political philosophy, the Left was just STARTING to ramp up the Great Society – which has turned out to be nothing more than a Great Mistake: has poverty been conquered? Has the rise in the size of govt proven to yield more efficient govt? Has it lead to more personal and economic Freedom and Liberty?
He has the right question, though: “What have we done?” Let me answer it this way – “What did you fail to do”? Republicans gave up and let the Left control the conversation and via Hollywood and the schools, allowed the Left to change the paradigm right from under your feet – and you clueless boobs let them. He states that “unless we are willing to change” but believes that we have to talk more and that the Progressives are willing to always split the difference. In other words, stop the fighting.
And with that, he proves that he does not understand the underlying fight going on several layers down. The question is not how can we compromise better just to appear “to be better”. Rather, it is “how do we return the State of Government back to where it needs to be so that we, the people, can be great again”? Why do we need to achieve consensus just to be able to prove Obama right when he said that America’s greatness is due to its programs“?
“There should be no red, no blue, no right, no left here, it should be America first. We need to become more civil, less ideological, and to understand the parameters of the challenges we face.
“Unless we change and stop kicking the can down the road, our lives, our children’s lives and our grandchildren’s lives will be impaired.”
Absolutely wrong! To put America first, we have to have people, not before profit, but before before Government. Remember, we cannot allow the conflation of Government with Society, the Founders never believed that the government of this Republic was the same as the general society – in fact, they took great pains to ensure that limitations were put on Government to prevent that. There can be no compromising on that, and Progressives see that as anathema to them. They will become even more ideological about achieving their end goal – and Robert Scott, according to the article, wishes us to give up and compromise on ours. The challenge we face is that of my favorite question: what is the Proper Role of Government?
Until that question is answered, and answered affirmatively that the Proper Role of Government IS that laid down by the Framers, there cannot be, nor SHOULD there be, compromise on that stance. Consensus can be arrived at ONLY when the Progressive philosophy is totally eliminated as its goal is to take away individual freedom and liberty, equality before the Law, and equal opportunity by replacing it with societal security, equal outcomes, and allocations of resources allocated not by private decisions but by political decisions spurned onward by what George Will calls ‘muscular special interests’.
“If you expect the very best, that is what you get every day.” Scott said. “If you accept mediocrity, that is what you get: a second-rate country. The only way out of this is through civility, which is what we don’t have today.
Wrong again – we will continue to become, and arrive at being, a second-rate country if we reach “European Socialist” level. That will be reached if civility is the only tool that Robert Scott allows us to use.
Me? I prefer the takeoff on Clausewitz: “Politics is war by other means”. Ah yes, the Stupid Party: don’t harness me with Marquis of Queensbury rules when an MMA philosophy is required.
Not that the ‘Grok will allow that to happen anyways….
