WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2015 – Paleo Republicans are having a hissy fit concerning the 40 tea party conservatives that form the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. White House ally, GOP Speaker John Boehner, can’t govern as a Republican when passing legislation requires the votes of Nancy Pelosi Democrats.
Boehner may hold the speaker’s gavel (until a replacement can be found), but everyone with a brain knows Nancy Pelosi really controls the purse strings in Congress.
The Freedom Caucus objects to this corrupt one-party-state gentlemen’s agreement and refuses to play a part in the farce.
This has the GOP establishment’s voice at the New York Times, David Brooks, on the verge of tears.
“Running a government is a craft, like carpentry,” wrote Brooks, “But the new [tea party] Republican did not believe in government and so did not respect its traditions, its disciplines and its craftsmanship. They do not accept the hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity.”
I can almost hear Brooks making the same absurd and shrill argument to the state delegates at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall before they voted to “assume, among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
In Britain, all sovereignty once rested in the British monarch. Today, all sovereignty rests in Britain’s Parliament.
Here in America, sovereignty rests in “We the People.” We cede only a portion of it to our elected representatives. As a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” these representatives are not subservient to their party or Congress’s “hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity” – whatever the hell that means.
They serve the authoritative and undisputed sovereigns under the law of this land: “We the People.”
“People who don’t accept democracy,” said Brooks, “will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent.”
Brooks has a very strange understanding of American “democracy.” The most important “conversation” that occurs in a properly functioning democracy is between the candidate and the people of his district.
If during that conversation they decide Washington’s power and spending must diminish and that doing so is a matter on which they will not compromise, it is because that conversation is one whose tradition predates those of Congress.
What Brooks really means is that today’s understanding of “democracy” is that of the old socialist democratic republics: Government apparatchiks claim to mystically channel the will of the people and act in their name.
In other words, there is no need for honest “conversation” when the only ones you have are with the imaginary followers in your head.
That is not democracy. That is schizophrenia.