Like the college guy with the hot girlfriend who becomes habituated to demoralizing, degrading, bankrupting insanity, so the American people with politicians. Whatever “representative government” is supposed to be, it sure as hell ain’t this.
Army combat veteran and Congressman Max Rose (D-NY) has released a statement breaking party lines to oppose Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.
That’s it. That’s the news. That a Democrat is voting other than Nancy Pelosi wants him to vote. The Left considers this a huge betrayal, while the Right is hailing it as some kind of big victory. My analysis is more Kent Brockmanesque — I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, democracy simply doesn’t work.
The context — “Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution” — doesn’t matter at all. That’s not to say it isn’t a serious issue, worthy of real debate. We could start with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the War Powers Resolution. The latter replaced the former and is still in effect, at least theoretically, though it’s hard to see how much American military action since 1973 is covered under it. But that would require some thought, and some historical literacy, so let’s talk about what “everybody knows.”
For instance, everybody knows that if Obama had taken out Soleimani, the same folks who are currently freaking out would be ecstatic. The only thing that moistens the thighs of the Media-Academic Complex more than a live terrorist is a dead terrorist cruise-missiled by a Democrat president. The Bin Laden raid was a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, but it’s still the first thing Lefty brings up when he wants to sound tough. (Soleimani, not that it matters, was tooling around a combat zone wearing the uniform of an avowed US enemy).
So, too, everybody knows what would’ve happened if the Republican House had brought a “war powers resolution” to the floor limiting Obama’s freedom of action:
Again, there are real, big, important issues at stake here — can Pakistan send commandos into New York if they find out a guy on their hit list is living there? — but none of them would matter in the slightest to the “debate.” The content doesn’t matter. At all. Only the form.
Let me put this as clearly and calmly as I can: This is gibbering insanity, and yet we conduct all our political affairs this way. This “war powers” nonsense pales in comparison to sham-peachment, for instance, where we’ve got Nancy Pelosi crowing that “we’ve been working on this for two and a half years,” when the so-called “crime” he’s being “impeached” for happened — if it happened, which of course it didn’t — in 2019. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” they announced almost from the moment the last vote was counted, will be whatever they need them to be.
Then look at the fallout. A lone Democrat, NY rep Jeff Van Drew, voted against “impeachment.” And then he switched parties. Think about that for a second. What could “representation” possibly mean, when the Party requires such lockstep loyalty that you have to abandon it to vote against it on a matter of grave historical consequence? The removal of a sitting US president is bound to have grave, global ramifications, for years… and yet, both sides all vote in lockstep, to the point where any dissenter actually has to go over to the other, lockstep-voting side.
So, too, with the “trial,” whenever that actually happens. Here too, everybody knows that Pelosi is only delaying the transmission of the articles of impeachment — which is unconstitutional in itself, as if that has ever mattered — in order to bribe, cajole, threaten, intimidate, or otherwise sweet-talk a few “Republicans” more than just Snowe, Murkowski, and Pierre Defecto. Again, think about that. We know how these clowns are going to vote, regardless of the evidence.
Again, this is a situation of the utmost consequence. You’re gonna be in the history books for this, one way or another. Short of actually voting to declare war on China or something, this is probably the most consequential action a Senator could ever be expected to vote on…. and yet, we all know how it’s gonna go. Is there anyone, anywhere, so naive as to think that, say, Martin Heinrich (D-NM, a guy I picked at random) is going to break ranks? Or that however Pierre Defecto ends up voting, it’s based on anything other than who offered him the sweetest deal?
THIS. IS. LUNACY., and yet, everyone in America simply accepts it as given. We even clap for “bipartisanship,” for pete’s sake, like the good little trained seals we are. As far as I’m concerned, the actions of our “representatives” are the strongest possible argument for divine-right monarchy. At least when the Duke of This schemes with the Earl of That to assassinate the King because the King awarded the Duke’s mistress to Baron The Other Thing, they’re being no better than they ought to be. “Democracy” asks everyone, voters and representatives alike, to be better than they ought… and then cheers when they turn out to be worse scoundrels than we thought.Loading Likes...