Get over it

“If one person is offended, we have to listen.”

That, my friends, is a quote from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodall, being interviewed about the Redskins name – as in the Washington Redskins. 

To which I respond:  No, you don’t.  

You don’t have to respond to every hare-brained nitwit always on the lookout for something that offends them.  Or about something they think might offend someone else. 

It’s like the NCAA telling college teams they need to change their names and mascots, because someone, somewhere, might be offended. 

So you’ll now find few college teams named Warriors, Indians, or Braves or after specific tribes.  Central Michigan University teams were allowed to remain Chippewas after being approved by a Chippewa tribe; FSU teams are still the Seminoles after approval by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

Now as a UF graduate I am prejudiced against FSU.  But for the record there never really was an indigenous Florida “Seminole tribe.”  The “tribe” was originally comprised mostly of runaway slaves and banished outcasts from other tribes north of Florida.  The guy on the horse with the war paint and the flaming spear at FSU games is pure mythology. 

If FSU wanted to have someone truly representative of Florida’s Seminoles they’d have a casino dealer arrive on an airboat loaded with cheap cigarettes.  And instead of sticking a flaming spear in the ground, he’d wrestle an alligator. 

Politically incorrect, but more accurate.  And certain to offend someone, somewhere. 

Chances are, if you’re named Tiger or Osceola something and live off Tamiami Trail, that wasn’t funny.  But if you’ve ever traveled down to the Florida Keys on US 1, you get it.   Don’t feel guilty. 

So what’s the point in making some college team known as the Warriors for almost a century to suddenly become the Pioneers or some other innocuous name?  It wasn’t as if they demeaned warriors everywhere.  But on the very off chance they might – political correctness won out. 

The same political correctness has also struck high school teams.  Because someone thought someone might be offended. 

So say goodbye to the chiefs, warriors, braves and names that may have the word “red” in them – like Red Raiders – that generations of high schoolers cheered on. 

The ultimate in political correctness run amuck in sports team names may be from Utah.  There a team changed its name from Cougars because the local school board thought that might be offensive to a certain type of woman who prefers younger men. 

The team became the Chargers – which in an equally remote way might be disrespectful toward those with credit problems.  So far, no problems. 

Listen, if  you spend your entire life – or career – focused almost exclusively on not offending or upsetting anyone at all, you’re not going to get much accomplished and life is going to be very boring.  Very, very boring.  

Plus, there will be no jokes, no satire, no “dark sarcasm in the classroom” (Pink Floyd), no making fun of anything that’s patently stupid.   

In a nation of 300+ million people, somebody, somewhere, is always going to be offended by something. We simply can’t let the tyranny of the thin skinned or chronically offended to overrule common sense.  Sometimes a joke is just a joke. 

And sometimes a sports team’s name is just a name.

We need to lighten up and stop taking every little thing so seriously. 

The Red Robin hamburger chain caught Hell for a joke in a commercial that in addition to a big line of burgers they also offered a garden burger “just in case your daughter’s going through a phase.”  

Vegans were outraged that someone made fun of them; that someone would be dismissive of vegetarianism as a “phase.”   They demanded Red Robin pull the spot.  

Volkswagen got hammered for a spot with a white guy in Minnesota so happy with his new VW that he gets into a Jamaican “don’t worry, be happy” state of mind, complete with accent, and cheers up his coworkers.  VW was accused of being racist.    

Coke ran a Super Bowl commercial set in a desert with Las Vegas showgirls, cowboys, Mad Max types, and Bedouins on camels all racing toward an oasis.  It was derided as racist, because the Bedouins were on camels. Arabs here were offended; they thought the ad fed negative stereotypes of Arabs.    

(Apparently Las Vegas showgirls, cowboys, and Mad Max motorcyclists – all stereotypes themselves – had no issues with the commercial.)

Very recently, Hobby Lobby – a chain of avowedly Christian stores – was flamed in social media for offering Christmas decorations but not Hanukah decorations as a matter of policy. 

Look, somebody is always offended by something.  The question is, do you care? 

No, I mean that.  Forget being politically correct.  Drop the compassion you’re conditioned to think you should have.  Look into your heart and see if you honestly and truly care about a lot of stuff that seems to offend people. 

Like saying Merry Christmas.  Yes, there are people who are apparently offended by this.  But they are few and far between.  Contrary to Bill O’Reilly, I don’t think there’s a “War on Christmas.”  However, I will concede that there might very well be a war on common sense being waged by professional, perpetual complainers who contend they are offended by the most mundane stuff. 

“Christmas trees” are now renamed “holiday trees” so as not to offend anyone.  That's stupid.  

In Cherry Hill, they stopped celebrating Halloween in public schools because it was deemed a religious holiday.  Yeah, don’t know about you, but this Protestant kid never associated trick-or-treat with the eve of All Saints’ Day.  I don’t remember anyone dressing up as a saint, either.  Nobody on my block gave out candy crosses, nor carved pumpkins with a likeness of the Martyrdom of San Sebastian. 

So much for the Easter Bunny, too.  I’m a fairly well-read guy, yet I don’t seem to recall how Easter Egg Hunts, Easter Parades and baskets filled with candy directly relate to the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Here I just thought the Easter Bunny was about spring.

Now, some of these overreactions may tick you off.  But we’ve all gotten used to such nonsense. 

True story.  Some years ago a friend happened to attend a Baptist church service for the first time.  He said he was shocked when the minister kept mentioning “Jesus Christ” in his sermon.  My friend was so conditioned to be politically correct he said he almost flinched every time the minister said “Christ” aloud, like it was a forbidden word.  Jesus was one thing; Jesus Christ was quite another – you just didn’t say Christ in public for fear of offending someone.   

Another true story.  Some years ago I met a new client who casually asked if I was a Hebe.  I was stunned and frankly speechless just to hear the word, especially from a Jew.  It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, from years of being trained not to use offensive words like Hebe.

We laugh about it now, but I actually panicked at that moment. 

I guess the point is that we can’t be so sensitive to every little thing that’s said.  We can’t live a full life walking on tiptoes for fear of offending someone.  Certainly we don’t want to consciously offend someone deliberately. But we can’t constantly overreact to every single person that finds something hurtful in the most innocuous things.

Somebody somewhere is going to be pissed off about something.

Get over it. They will, too. Eventually. 

And if they don’t … too bad. 

The demise of public service

There was a time when America’s best and brightest – and wealthiest – went into public service out of a sense of noblesse oblige. 

Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Lodges, and other members of America’s landed aristocracy entered government service because they thought it was their civic duty.  They didn’t do it for money. 

They simply wanted to serve their country.  It was the right thing for the well-heeled to do. 

That was before our Federal government morphed into the self-serving entity it is now.   

And make no mistake, that’s what it’s become. 

Forget about the high and noble calling of civic duty.  The siren song of government employment today is not about serving the public interest; it’s about serving yourself with virtual bulletproof job security regardless of job performance, as long as you don’t rock the boat. 

At one time, the role of our Federal government was to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.   Now it seems it spends much more time protecting and defending itself and its employees from the public they are supposed to serve. 

And as our government continues to grow and expand its employee base, and as it reaches deeper and deeper into our everyday lives, it’s also becoming further and further detached from the public it is tasked with serving.  Because of its insular nature, it doesn’t notice this contradiction. 

In essence, our government has become an entity of itself, by itself, and primarily for itself. It looks out for its own, at all costs, and is loathe to acknowledge – much less punish – any improprieties among its employees.  This often occurs with bureaucracies; ours happens to be on steroids

In effect, it’s taken on a life of its own, distinct and apart from the rest of the country.  It doesn’t have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.  Its employees don’t have to follow the laws and regulations they impose on the general population. 

It also operates within a completely separate economic system, unconstrained by supply and demand, budget concerns, or even generally accepted accounting principles.  It spends far more than it collects in taxes, prints money like the Weimar Republic, borrows billions more and thinks one solution is to raise the debt limit on its credit card so it can print and borrow even more.    

If our government were held to the same standards as it imposes on American businesses, it would be forced into bankruptcy, its remaining assets would be liquidated and distributed to its creditors, and a lot of people would probably be going to jail.

But that’s not going to happen.  Not because it shouldn’t, but because the Feds won’t let it. 

There’s a particularly dangerous group think that pervades our government that everyone in government is part of something bigger and somehow more important than anything else.  Because of that, they can’t be held to the same standards of behavior as ordinary citizens.  They believe they are the forces of righteousness who see more, know more, and therefore are entitled to more. 

While we plebeians putter along in our pedestrian lives, they are doing big things, things we can’t understand, things that are part of the “big picture” government employees alone see. 

The stuff the public finds disturbing they see as mere speed bumps.  Lois Lerner at the IRS is a perfect example.  Benghazi is another.  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, anyone?  Solyndra?  

Federal government employees routinely escape serious punishment.  At worst, they get a paid leave of absence and get reassigned.  Try that outside of government and see what happens.

Now you may think I’m focusing mainly on the Obama Administration.  Certainly, they are part of the problem.  But so is Congress.  And so are the thousands upon thousands of Federal employees permanently ensconced in various departments and agencies throughout the government. 

There’s a pervasive attitude on the Federal level -- including among our elected officials – that the general public can’t be trusted to make intelligent decisions; intelligent defined as what they deem the right choices.   So they need to determine what foods we should eat, what fuel to put in our cars, who we should hire and how much we should pay them, where we should live, how we should get to work, what healthcare we should get, what health insurance we need and so on.

However, they’ll readily exempt themselves from all of this, because … well, they’re in the government.  So while some in Congress rail about student debt and tax cheats, it’s estimated that thousands of Federal employees – including those on Congressional staffs – have defaulted on their loans and/or owe back taxes.  And yes, that includes IRS employees.  

In the current debate over defunding or delaying ObamaCare, we learned that while the general public is being forced into it, Congress and their staffers won’t be.  They will continue to enjoy their subsidized healthcare plan.  The IRS – which will ensure that we all have “acceptable” healthcare or pay penalties – has managed to get its employees exempted as well. 

You would think conservative Republicans in Congress would see and seize on the bald-faced hypocrisy in this.  But when they were pushed on how they and their staffers got to keep their plan while the rest of us couldn’t, their response was that they were just maintaining “what all Federal employees get.”  

And there, folks, is the problem in a nutshell. 

Federal employees in general, and members of Congress and the Administration – regardless of political affiliation – believe they are entitled to special treatment.  It’s as if getting on the Federal payroll automatically enrolls you in a private club – or a street gang – which has its own rules of behavior outside the law and whose members always take care of each other, no matter what.

This is just wrong.  It’s also a major reason why there’s such a disconnect between the public and the government.  The American people don’t trust the Federal government.  There are too many instances of self-serving behavior at all levels to be ignored.    

They don’t trust Congress at all.  They don’t trust this administration to be honest with them, or to police itself.  Who can blame the public? 

They also believe government workers make too much and work too little compared to them. 

They wonder who the “non-essential personnel” are and why we have non-essential personnel on the government payroll at all. 

If fiscal hawks in Congress are really interested in cutting waste and fat – wouldn’t non-essential personnel seem to be first on the chopping block?  I mean, they are already defined as personnel that’s not really needed …  

Most of all, the tax-paying public doesn’t understand how government workers at all levels can have such a cavalier attitude toward the people paying their salaries and funding their benefits. 

That’s because many in the public still think government employees are public servants, when the reality is exactly the opposite.

More often than not, we now serve the government.  At least that seems to be the attitude of those in government – we exist as a funding mechanism and source of political currency.   

The Federal bureaucracy doesn’t really care what we think, ever.  Most Presidents appear to care when up for re-election, but actually don’t.  Congress only cares when House or Senate seats are up for grabs; even then, their interest in us is fleeting and passes as soon as the elections are over.  Then it’s back to self-serving business as usual. 

In the end, regardless of political party, what the government wants, it takes from us – our privacy, our personal liberties, the proceeds of our labors and enterprise.   

When it does this without the consent of the governed, we’re just supposed to go along.  Because it’s all for the greater good, right? 

Now I’m not preaching anarchy; I believe in the need for government.  Government can accomplish important, useful, and practical things far beyond the capabilities of individuals.  It can keep order and provide essential services to safeguard the health and well-being of its citizens.  Government can do an enormous amount of good and build things that benefit society as a whole.   

But good government needs to have high standards for integrity and honesty at all levels.  It needs to  remember that it exists only to serve the needs of  those it governs, and not just itself.   

I’m not so sure we have a government like that right now.     

Occupy D.C.

It’s time we all faced the fact that our Federal government is broken. 

Despite the best intentions of the nation’s founders, we’ve managed to screw it up. 

Congress has become a parliament of whores, only interested in maintaining power and position.  The Presidency has devolved from using its bully pulpit to lead, to just being a bully.  Even the Supreme Court has been compromised through a confirmation process that puts a higher value on ideology than proficiency or objectivity.      

Many in government now consider the Constitution an anachronism that can’t be expected to keep pace with changing social mores and trends in a complex, modern society.  So they ignore it. 

A free and unfettered press once could be counted on as an objective watchdog to expose government malfeasance and corruption.  That’s why it’s afforded such protections under the Constitution.  However, while the press remains free and unfettered, it’s now more lapdog to a particular perspective than objective watchdog. 

Without any hard and fast rules, and no checks and balances, everything’s in free fall. 

Instead of a nation of laws, governed in turn by the Constitution, we’ve become a Darwinian society where survival of the fittest has morphed into survival of the most politically connected. 

Who you know and what power you have over them is most important. 

Corporations, Wall Street, special interest groups, and all their respective lobbyists control what happens in Congress and the Presidency.  They control what laws get passed or killed, and what regulations are enacted.  They are willing to pay for that control. 

Mao said political power grows from the barrel of a gun; in America political power grows from the barrel of a Mont Blanc pen signing a big campaign check.   

Big campaign checks seduce both Republicans and Democrats equally, regardless of source.  It makes no difference if the check – or another service of equal value – is from George Soros, the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, GE, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The contributor is buying a seat at the table and a voice in policy decisions, with the clear expectation that the greater the value of their contribution, the more powerful their voice.   

Campaign finance reform to reduce this influence is a joke.  Every time someone brings up a new plan, someone else figures out a workaround to keep the corruption flowing.  Plus, politicians don’t really want to end big-money politics anyway.  They’re never going to come up with legislation to minimize the power of money in politics any more than they will pass laws limiting their own terms.    

This helps to make the two-party system irrelevant.  Neither the Republican nor Democrat Party stands for much anymore.  The establishment-types that run each pretend there are differences between the two parties, but there really aren’t. 

Both national parties seek the same thing – control over who among big campaign contributors gets rewarded and who gets punished.  Those who get rewarded are counted on to contribute more money.  Likewise, those who get punished can be counted on to contribute more money to reverse their fortunes.  It’s a win/win for politicians. 

So where do we – the ordinary folks in the middle – fit in all this? 

I mean, we’re the ones paying all the bills with our taxes.  We’re the ones who suffer the consequences of stupid fiscal and economic policies.  We’re the ones who have to pick up the tab in higher prices for some special treatment or protection given to some legislator’s constituent.

Where do we fit?  Honestly, we don’t.  We don’t have a voice.  

Big corporations, big unions, and big special interest groups are calling all the shots.    

Forget Mr. Smith goes to Washington; almost nobody in either party is willing to stand up to them and do what’s right for the rest of us. 

Establishment Republicans and Democrats like the status quo.  They do everything in their power – including forming unholy alliances with each other behind the scenes – to maintain the status quo.  The media for now also likes the status quo.   

So how do we change things?  How do we get the power back? 

There needs to be a revolution.  We need to overthrow the government we have now.  I think most of us realize that; we just differ on how to do it. 

I propose that as a first step we re-elect no one to the House or Senate who opposes legislation calling for no more than one term for a Senator and two terms for a House member.

I’m sure one of the Tea Party freshmen would be happy to introduce that legislation.  The threat of being defeated in the general election is primarily to pressure the old guard of both parties to give it up and stop fighting term limits.   

Six years as a Senator and four years as a House member is long enough.  These people need to get real jobs and see what it’s like in the real world. 

Concurrently, we need to start pressing for a Constitutional Convention (Article V) through state legislatures with the goal of codifying those term limits on the Federal level.  This is the way to go because it’s the only way to bypass Congress to get a Constitutional Amendment considered.  You need two-thirds of all state legislatures in agreement.  And it will take a long time. 

While we’re leaning on state legislatures, let’s push through open primaries for House and Senate seats.  California has already done this as an experiment.  There would be only one unified primary for each seat where any registered voter could vote for the candidate of his or her choice, regardless of party affiliation.  The top two popular vote winners – regardless of party – would face off in the general election.  

Maybe we’d finally get qualified and more rational men and women in office based on their appeal to a broader spectrum of voters in their districts, rather than to narrow interest nut jobs.

This is how I’d start.  We need to shake the foundations.  Government needs to fear the people, not the other way around.  Senators and Representatives need to represent the interests of their constituents, not just themselves.

And the best way to start is to make sure Senators and Representatives start realizing they have part-time jobs, not full-fledged government careers for life. 

Eventually I’d like to see a viable alternative to the current Republican and Democrat parties.  

Maybe a very radical party that would promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States and actually do that if elected. 

A party that might – just might – roll back our government to its enumerated powers. 

In the meantime, I’d settle for getting rid of all the deadwood and shameless whores in office now. 

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right …

Well you couldn’t ask for more political entertainment than we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks. 

And to think it’s an off year for elections. 

Normally, you don’t get these kinds of yuks outside of primary season.  You know, when the loons on the left and right come out to play.

The lefties promise to take from the rich to give everything to everybody who isn’t rich, except those things they’ve decided aren’t good for you.  The righties promise to preserve your right to things the left has decided aren’t good for you, and to stop the left from taking stuff from you to give to others.

That’s pretty much the essence of Democrat and Republican positions.   

From there it gets more entertaining. 

The lefties accuse the right of being bigoted, misogynist, neo-Nazi, science-denying, religious fanatics – and all-around party poopers – who want to keep blacks in chains, keep women barefoot and pregnant, deport all illegal immigrants, and turn back the clock to the 1950’s. 

The righties accuse the left of being amoral godless Commies intent on shredding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, while using NPR and public schools as propaganda vehicles for promoting promiscuity, the breakup of the traditional family, and the destruction of the American work ethic and value system. 

Wow.  Some fun, eh? 

And Americans wonder why we can’t just get along.  Go figure. 

Anyway, that’s what we have to look forward to. 

But looking back to the past couple of weeks is fun, too.

Would we or wouldn’t we attack Syria?  Nobody knew – especially Obama.  That is, until a chance off-the-cuff comment by Kerry got picked up by the Russians who turned it into a proposal. 

Before that, Obama – who said earlier that Assad using chemical weapons would cross a red line, and then denied he ever set a red line – waffled between hitting Assad hard, hitting Assad maybe not so hard, and maybe not hitting Assad at all.  Maybe just talking to Assad in a strong voice with some finger wagging.   Maybe just making a mean face at him.  Who knows? 

Obama didn’t; he seemed to be waiting for something else to happen.  But public opinion remained opposed to getting involved in Syria at all.  His minions were having no luck changing public opinion on the matter. Then the Brits turned down his request for their support.

You know as an American President you’re really screwed when the Brits turn you down. 

So who was left?  Military heavyweights like Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Lichtenstein?   And it wasn’t certain any of them would be willing to send their one and only soldier into harm’s way on our behalf.   France said they might come along, but who can depend on the French? 

Along this convoluted path Obama did the unthinkable: He asked for Congressional approval.  And that’s when the real fun began. 

His supporters in and out of Congress had been pushing for unilateral action by Obama; they wanted him to hit Assad hard.  (Now these were the same people who went absolutely bat-shit crazy when GWB launched the attacks on Iraq with Congressional approval.) 

They were royally pissed when Obama did what GWB did.   Huh? 

That led to magic moments where Obama’s biggest fans were attacking him for not using his Presidential authority to drop Tomahawk missiles on people we only thought had used chemical weapons.  (Even now, nobody knows for sure who used the chemical weapons.) 

So as not to let Democrats corner the market on hypocrisy, Republicans who normally support the use of military force by any President to punish bad guys around the world suddenly became pacifists.   An odd coalition of Tea Party Republicans and far-left Democrats started to coalesce in opposition to doing anything on Syria. 

McCain – continuing his charge headfirst toward permanent irrelevancy – wanted to bomb the crap out of Assad so there would be regime change in Syria.  He spoke of the Syrian opposition as the good guys, moderates, because, well … he’d met with them.  He dismissed reports that Al Qaeda and jihadists were heavily involved in the Syrian opposition.  

I guess old John was asleep when we armed and trained the mujahidin in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, only to end up fighting the now well-trained and well-armed mujahidin ourselves after the Russians left.  Or maybe he dozed off when the rebels we supported during the “Arab Spring” turned out to be oddly similar to the jihadists who wanted to kill all Americans. 

Anyway, Congress was a complete cluster, as always. 

When it looked like Congress was going to defeat his request for authorization, Obama dispatched Kerry – like Colin Powell for GWB – to make the case before Congress that Assad had chemical weapons, and that Assad had used them on his own people.

Kerry gave perhaps the speech of his life. 

All along the Russians said Assad had no chemical weapons.  Assad said he had no chemical weapons.  Then Kerry made his offhand remark  that one way to avoid being attacked would be for Assad to give up his chemical weapons to a third party – but Assad would never do that. 

The Russians pounced on the idea.  All of a sudden Assad found the chemical weapons he didn’t have and agreed to turn those weapons he didn’t have over a neutral third party.

Obama first discounted the idea.  Kerry discounted the idea – even though it was his. 

But then, the light went on for Obama.  He pulled back his request for Congressional approval, tossing Nancy, Harry and of course Kerry under the bus, while he awaited more details from the Russians. 

The Russians, for God’s sake.   

Obama’s relying on the Russians to pull his bacon out of the fire.  That’s rich.

Meanwhile, Obama goes on TV and in a rambling, incoherent monologue confirms for the nation and the world that he’s a complete buffoon.  He’s way over his head and totally baffled about what he should do, so he plays the “baffle them with bullshit” gambit 

Putin’s laughing his ass off and openly mocks Obama.  Which is justified. 

So here’s the net/net.  Assad gets 6 months to turn over the chemical weapons he doesn’t have.  This also means that he stays in power, and although the media doesn’t want to cover this, he’s winning against the insurgents.  The insurgents are pissed at us because they hoped we’d come in on their side in a big way; instead, the CIA is supplying them with small arms – rifles, pistols and ammo by some reports – which aren’t that effective against Assad’s tanks and helicopter gunships. 

Assad wins. Russia wins. U.S. prestige and believability takes yet another hit. 

Obama will no doubt declare victory.  His toadies are already out there supporting his new mantra that Assad was so scared of Obama that he caved on his chemical weapons. 

Except that securing Assad’s chemical weapons wasn’t how this started.  It wasn’t even a primary goal.  Obama wanted to show what a tough guy he was by punishing Assad with a strong military strike. 

Obviously that’s not going to happen.  Obama will claim the moral high ground, nonetheless, and pretend that this was his plan all along.  And look how well it worked.  We didn’t cause any loss of life and we got exactly what we wanted. 

Really? 

Given that the media will push this nonsense nonstop, a lot of Americans may forget that Obama caved early on when it looked like public opinion was against intervention.  Everything after that was simply waffling, hoping something else came up to give him a clue what to do. 

That’s called decision by indecision.  That’s not how a leader leads. 

In the meantime, we’ve given the world a lot to laugh about.

Mob rule

There’s a natural tendency among Americans to think that democracy works. 

We were all brought up to believe that democracy best represents the will of the people.

It would, if everybody participated.  But not everybody does, so democracy here often reflects the will of a much smaller slice of the public – those motivated enough to be politically involved. 

However, even if everyone participated, the will of the people isn’t infallible.  Our founders knew this.  That’s why they attempted to engineer a balance of power in our government. 

The popularly elected Representatives reflected the will of the people.  Senators were selected by state legislatures to represent the interests of the states.  (This changed with the populist-inspired 17^th Amendment in 1913 which permitted direct election of Senators by popular vote.)

The President was elected not by the majority of the popular vote – which would be mob rule – but by an Electoral College.  This neat invention helped to ensure that every state would have a representative voice in the selection of a President; lesser known is that it also served as a last-ditch safety valve.   

Finally, the Supreme Court was created to be above all of this, with lifetime appointments for its members.  Its power was to interpret whether laws and regulations created by popularly-elected politicians conflicted with the Constitution of the United States. So the Supreme Court could invalidate and/or temper bad laws that, while popular, were unconstitutional. 

These were all attempts to minimize the impact of mob rule, and the tyranny of a majority empowered to take away the rights of the minority.  The founders deliberately tried to water down “pure” democracy so that the changing whims of a fickle and potentially self-serving public didn’t run roughshod over the intrinsic rights of others. 

They recognized, intuitively, that the public couldn’t always be counted on to do the right thing.  Lest we forget, slavery at one time had popular support in America, as did Prohibition, and laws against miscegenation.  Segregation didn’t end by popular vote. 

Nor could a popularly-elected Congress or President always be trusted to do the right thing. 

That why there’s a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Curiously, the Bill of Rights is almost exclusively about limiting what government can do.  In the eyes of the Anti-Federalists of the time, the Constitution gave too much power to a popularly-elected central government; the Bill of Rights tilted it back toward preserving individual and states’ rights.  

That’s enough of a history lesson.  The important thing to remember is that these were all carefully considered ideas designed to make us a nation of laws, not whims.  Most of all, everything was consciously engineered to hinder mob rule and especially to prevent anyone from gaining the powers of an absolute monarch. 

So where are we now? 

Despite the best efforts of the founders, we are increasingly moving toward mob rule.  And many would say that we already have a de facto monarchy. 

How did this happen? 

Well, an efficient and enduring democracy requires an informed and rational electorate. 

Candidly, the public is not that well informed.  Nor does the general public care to be; it’s too much work.  Also, politicians and the media have exacerbated the problem by dumbing down everything to a good vs. evil, black or white equation.  They’re not interested in educating the public; they realize that’s like trying to teach a pig to sing – it would waste their time and annoy the pig. 

So they take the path of least resistance.  They turn important issues into bite-size, more digestible morality plays; political soap operas where there are clearly defined heroes and villains.  Heroes are above reproach; villains are beneath contempt.  There are no gray areas – only black and white.  By design.  

Everybody talks about “low information voters.”  Truth is, most voters today fall into that category.  They might as well be getting their information from cartoons.  Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote seem to be the media’s model for political coverage, along with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. 

It’s easy to see who to root for.  One side’s clever; the other’s clueless.  That’s intentional. 

In reality, virtually none of today’s problems have simple solutions, no matter how clever one side or the other may be. 

The voting public generally doesn’t even understand the true nature and scope of the problems we face.  They don’t understand basic economics, much less domestic and global economics.  They don’t understand the debt ceiling, why inner city schools are failing, why gasoline costs what it does, or why food prices go up or down.   They’ve been conditioned to believe that somebody smarter than them has already figured this stuff out.  So they don’t need to worry about it anymore.  It’s handled. 

Politicians and the media know the public doesn’t want to be bothered with the details. So they tell the public what they want to hear, the facts be damned.  It suits politicians’ purposes better.  Because while an efficient and enduring democracy requires an informed and rational electorate, a mob doesn’t. 

Make no mistake, politicians prefer a mob. A mob is easier to inflame, manipulate and wield against opponents.  It can be used to intimidate adversaries because of its inherent volatility; it doesn’t take much to push a mob from protest to violence.  Most of all, it doesn’t care about facts; it only cares about what it feels is true.  In the hands of a demagogue it’s a powerful tool. 

It also gets media coverage, which makes a mob seem even bigger and important. 

Even the most brain-dead in Congress and the Administration know they can’t sway public opinion with facts and logic.  Much less get re-elected.  The public won’t stand for it; they want simple answers, simple solutions and someone to cheer and someone to boo.  They’re fans moved by passion and emotion, not reason and knowledge. 

Mob rule is taking over American politics.  It’s a demagogue’s dream come true. 

We’re seeing that now as the President and his administration are trying to overturn the balance of power in the government.  What he’s been unable to get through as legislation, he’s pushed through as regulations.  He’s bypassed the legislative process with Executive Orders.  He’s refused to execute the laws of the United States, as required by his oath of office, including laws he helped to create.  He’s tried to intimidate the Supreme Court.  His Administration has used the power of government agencies to punish his political adversaries and help his supporters.  And like a true demagogue, he’s demonized any opponents to his power grabs. 

In any other universe, these would be grounds for impeachment.  But Obama’s got a mob at his back.  In today's political environment, that matters.    

He’s built a base of voters largely dependent on a perpetuation of liberal Democrat policies for practically everything.  He’s managed to nearly double dependency on food stamps – even over the dramatic increases during the Bush Administration – and will soon have control over who gets healthcare, for how much, and for how long.   He’s convinced his base that he can single-handedly restore the economy, reduce foreclosures, reduce student loan debt, and soak the rich to pay for everything, if only he had unbridled authority to do whatever he wants.     

Instead of being alarmed at his near dictatorial attitude, his fans think he’s great.  That’s because he gives them whatever they want.  He exploits their prejudices against anyone who has been more successful in life than they have.  And he tells them that every problem they face is caused by someone else, not them.  His supporters are absolved of any personal responsibility. All their problems are the fault of greedy bankers and Wall Street, right-wing fanatics, soulless corporations, and others Hell-bent on keeping them poor, sick, and in debt.  

Only he – and his government – stand between his followers and the abyss. With the stakes so high, he can’t be expected to be held to rules written by a bunch of dead white guys a couple of hundred years ago.     

This is music to the ears of his supporters.  They only wish he’d do more.  They wish his power were more absolute.  They wish he didn’t have to deal with Congress or the Supreme Court at all.  In fact, they wish he could be President for Life. 

How scary is that?

That’s what happens when a mob becomes the apparent majority, primarily because they're the only ones motivated enough to vote.