The reverberations of last week’s GOP Debate and the utter disdain that the CNBC “moderators” (aka, Democrat Socialists with bylines) held towards the candidates have not yet echoed out. But this from one of the “lions” of the Journalist Class, Carl Bernstein of Watergate investigative reporting fame, said this that caught my eye, even as he said that the lamestream media had better start paying attention to the conservative media:
Bernstein also said that the “contempt for government” Republicans had “was really extraordinary” and “Democrats are going to have to show that government has a reason to exist.”
Well then! Let’s unpack this backwards:
- “Democrats are going to have to show that government has a reason to exist.”
Well, there is the mark of someone on the Left – the fallacy that phrase shows: “has a reason to exist”. Yes, there are anarchists that would be quite happy to see no government at all – and all conservatives that I know shudder at that thought. As the saying goes, if we were all angels there’d be no need for government – and none of us are angels. What the Left ALWAYS leaves out is that singular modifier that should make up a phrase: limited. We believe in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and not NO government. We understand there is a need for government to provide certain services. It needs to act as a neutral umpire in legal matters. It needs to provide for the common defense. It needs to be on the lookout to keep “the various States” seeking retribution on each other (trade, taxes, et al).
But we disagree VEHEMENTLY with the idea that today’s government at almost every level is anything but limited. I’ve written many times that the enlarging of government has put it into the position of telling us what we can or cannot eat (ex: raw mile), what to wear to bed (ex: fabric used in pajamas), what energy sources we can use (ex: we will keep you from using fossil fuels), the kind of lightbulbs you can use (ex: incandescents) and when you can have sex (re: the Dept of Ed’s “Dear Colleague” letter moving sex crimes from our legal system to college kangaroo courts), and forcing free citizens to buy a products they’d ordinarily otherwise would not (ex: Obamacare). The examples abound.
Yes Government needs to exist – but not to this level of cost, size, and intrusiveness. THIS is not what the Founder intended government to be – to the point where we must serve it instead of the other way around.
This is the mark of a “free” people?
- “contempt for government” Republicans had “was really extraordinary”
We have contempt for the idea that Government can (and should) replace self-responsibility, mitigate all bad choices, and transform itself into an entity whose main purpose, if one looks at the money flows, is to take LOTS of money from some to simply hand it to others. We have contempt for those that drive such a government simply for the rubric that “people are hurting” and disregard that charity is the rightful purview of individuals and not faceless bureaucracies. We have contempt for leaders that believe it is their job to tell us how to live our lives instead of keeping government out of our ways. We have contempt for those that believe that Government hasn’t moved far enough in actually doing all these things.
We have contempt for the Blue Social Model that believes we all are mere children for which they must do this all. I’m tired of a Government that continuous disregards its own fundamental law as enumerated in the Constitution. I have contempt for Government that doesn’t have the common sense ability to know when to just leave me alone.
The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen
