THE CONSEQUENCES OF POLITICAL CENTRISM FOR US NATIONAL SECURITY
October 19, 2009
Exclusive: The Consequences of Political Centrism For U.S. National Security
C. Austin Burrell
The harsh truth of reconciliation of the right and left by well-intended “Centrists,†who allege to seek the best balance of the arguments and positions of both sides, is a never-ending movement to a socialist agenda. This should be no surprise to those who have studied historical socialist and communist theology. The fraud they perpetrate is one based on the ends justifying the means, and they view politics as class war by other means.
The United States has married itself to a two party system, chosen over a parliamentarian system of many parties seen in most Western nations. In these systems, government is run a vacillating assemblages of a number of parties who choose to come together to form a voting majority necessary for rule.
The core principals of republican democracy are aligned in this country by positions of opposing parties. One purportedly supports conservative values linked to individual liberties tied to States’ rights constituting a federalist system. The opposing party is linked to the concept of a controlling central government which provides for all of the needs of the people known as a compact theory of union, in exchange for the abrogation certain rights accorded when this country was formed.
This system only works when there is good faith on the parts of each party to preserve and protect the fundamental authority from which all central government authority is derived, the Constitution of the United States. It works only as long as both parties pay obeisance and pledge their loyalty to this highly logical and legal system of rights and obligations of citizens and politicians.
Our founders knew at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution that there would be powers who would seek to circumvent the government founded on this body of thought and philosophy, and the formers of this power provided for a highly balanced process for its modification. Integral to this was a legal process that provided for a balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches that depended on enforced checks and balances.
The hard left wrote a body of work in the 1800s which provided for a mechanical plan for the circumvention and eventual defeat of these checks and balances, reflected most completely in the works of Marx, Hegel, and many others. They saw what they determined to be a fatal flaw of republican democracy, which was its undiluted reliance on the good faith of our political leaders to their pledges of allegiance to this country and its foundations.
Indeed, in 1944, the head of the Socialist Party resigned from the campaign for the Presidency based on his assessment that the Democrat Party had adopted the Socialist platform, thereby making their agenda and existence superfluous. We see such thinking reflected today in a continuing set of concessions granted the left at every turn since the implementation of the Individual Income Tax in 1916.
For all intents and purposes, the socialist agenda has buried our fundamental principles on shameless promises of largesse taken from taxpayers, and without their informed consent, disbursed to others without assessment of needs. The socialist liberal left is without integrity, making promises they have no intention of keeping, representing facts about future performance for which they know they will never be held accountable, thereby laying a burden on our people’s future that they will have neither a rational benefit from, nor for which they will be able to pay.
Without exception, since the early 1900s, every “compromise†of political differences has seen those for individual rights and accountability giving up discrete packages of their Constitution and individual rights, based on projections of costs and expansion of government authority that are never honored nor achieved. If this were true of only a few programs of the liberal left that would be one thing, but it is true of every entitlement program they have advanced.
They make promises of government largesse without ever speaking to the fact that they have no record of ever successfully managing such a program, nor have ever having met a financial goal, not once, not ever. When do the American people wake up and realize they are being manipulated without conscience?
The government made promises about the individual income tax when it was implemented, just as they did when they took on Social Security. They repeatedly sold the “Kool-Aid†that this money would flow effortlessly from government coffers without ever referencing that such funds could only come to the government by taking it from the pockets of individual tax payers and job creators. Income redistribution would be small, and the people would not notice it, at least, not at first.
Today, we look at a record of federal government intervention in Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the post office, Amtrak, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA and more, and all we can see is one program after another that has never once made a budget, and that has never once not cost an enormous amount more than promised when supporting enabling legislation was sought.
We have mortgaged our future for all who would come after us, to a level that must eventually destroy the dollar, while compromising our physical security in an increasingly unstable world. Anyone with an IQ greater than 0 must question this, unless he truly wants this country to be destroyed: Yes, I do believe this. We face entitlement liabilities as a nation in excess of $100 trillion. We can never cover this.
Those who would tear down the principles of republican democracy and individual rights this country was founded on are without conscience. They would call anyone opposing them racist, elitists, and worse, and risk driving class and race warfare as a means to their desired ends. I find this agenda to be without a moral conscience or compass, and I find those who would engage in this conduct to be borderline sociopaths, for whom there is no right and wrong, only what is expedient.
So what is their idea of rational political compromise with those who support our founders’ principles? It is that those same conservative supporters allow their principles and rights to be chipped away at, in a gradual assimilation and submersion of their existence into what is determined by them in their unique vision to be what is better for all.
My problem is that I can find no single compromise with the socialist/fascist left that has ever made such a concession to those of conservative Constitutional views. Unless we can begin to get something back from such negotiations and until we can see our political process begin to regain a rational balance that has been lost for over 100 years, we are doomed to an outcome no one can really imagine.
Republican democracies have demonstrated a real difficulty with staying in existence for any substantial period of time, with the brilliant and shining exception of Switzerland, which has stood now since 1200 AD. I would contend that this tiny country’s adherence to a strict Federalist system providing for inviolable State’s rights, along with their system of universal military service is the key element of their survival. Another is that they don’t treat financial fraud in the government or the state to be anything but what it is legally here: sedition.
I can only envision us surviving when we finally treat financial criminals as what they are: Traitors to our very existence. They should have only abrogated individual rights until acquitted. Habeus Corpus might be something they not have access to. They attack the core of our national security, and when they do that, they should be arrested for treason under our Patriot Act, or under the many other criminal codes we have for such miscreants.
Jim Cramer said it best: All we need is one of these financial criminals to do a perp walk, and their game will be over. If it doesn’t happen soon, they will face another kind of justice. They should prefer a jury.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor C. Austin Burrell is a corporate finance generalist with over 30 years of Wall Street and related experience. He was a senior derivatives specialist and development stage company investment banker for more than 35 years on Wall Street.He is a 1968 Graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and a graduate of the Army’s Finance Officer Advanced Course.
Comments are closed.
