16.6.19

WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE LOSES ITS LEGITIMACY?

Angelo Codevilla perceives a tyrannical administrative state, and what comes next might not be pleasant.
[Hillary] Clinton’s characterization of Trump voters as “deplorables” and “irredeemables” and Barack Obama’s description of rural Republican voters as “clingers” to Bibles, guns, and racism, has long been ruling-class conventional wisdom. This attitude is what crossed the threshold of revolution.

Because the Resistance succeeded so well in limiting the impact of the 2016 election, it solidified the Left and the ruling class’s sense of common identity and entitlement. Henceforth, the bureaucracies, the educational establishment, the judges, the corporate establishment and the media will continue to impose themselves, regardless of conservative election victories or laws, never mind the Constitution. This attitude is not the result of a policy decision, but the expression of an evolving identity.
Mr Codevilla's view rules out a scenario in which the political class rediscovers the good in Constitutional provisions limiting the powers of the Executive, or the Presidency.
The ruling class, unwilling to loosen its grip on America, will appeal to “the rule of law,” use its control of the bureaucracy to cut funds, its control of the media to intimidate, and might even send some federal agents to give substance to that intimidation. They might point guns. But knowing what they are up against, they dare not shoot.

America has already come apart. The conservative resistance can conserve only one of those parts.
Here, I thought the Kurt Schlichter novels about a divided country in a new kind of civil war were fiction, but Bookworm is also thinking along lines that they're a manual.
It’s the real Americans — the ones who believe in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and who believe in individual rights and self-reliance — who still know how to fight. I devoutly hope that the true Second American Revolution, the one that is a push-back against the socialist Fabian revolution that slowly occurred right before our un-heeding eyes, never needs to go outside the voting booths and courtrooms. However, if the Social Justice Warriors decide to continue their revolution on the streets, I’m pretty sure they’re going to lose quickly and efficiently.
That sort of talk has Reason's Steven Greenhut worried.  "The Democrats are dealing with a socialist-friendly Left that despises economic freedom, but Republicans are facing a resurgent nationalist Right that shares many of the same hostilities. There's a clear and present danger on both horizons." I'm quoting him a little bit out of context, as his column focuses more on an intramural spat among social conservatives that I've mostly not paid attention to: and yet, the voices of angry division seem to be riling up the true believers of all stripes.  Here's the problem, notes J. D. Tuccille, also in Reason.  "The government in the United States has increasingly become a powerful weapon that two warring tribes repeatedly seize control of and then use against each other. For those of us who are averse to being smashed, it's long past time to consider the machinery of the state as nothing more than a bludgeon in the hands of dangerous maniacs."  If not dangerous maniacs, at least the congenitally incompetent.  He continues,
Most of us will prefer quieter acts of disobedience—ignoring regulations and perhaps assisting others who get caught doing the same, as [Charles] Murray recommends. We might also choose to respond to the excesses of government agents as we would those of any other thugs, without offering undeserved deference, as Brennan suggests. We could refuse private services to state employees, damage government property, dox officials, and even directly intervene in incidents of oppressive action.

There's no reason to show respect to a system that sees us as nothing more than enemies to be smashed.
Unfortunately, restoring Constitutional order under such circumstances doesn't appear to be easy.

No comments: