Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle merite. —Joseph Marie Comte de Maistre
De Maistre (1753 – 1821) was a lawyer, diplomat, writer, and philosopher. He was influential in the court of hierarchical authoritarianism following the French Revolution, but in spite of his intellectual ties to France, he remained loyal to Sardinia and served his king as a member of the senate, an ambassador to Russia, and minister of state to the court in Turin. As a monarchist, believing such to be divinely sanctioned, de Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchs and for the authority of the Pope over temporal concerns. He also believed that only Christian constitutions could avoid civil disorder in the face of the passions of nationalism. I presume that he believed this because Christianity is not simply a religious affiliation, it is a foundation of ethical values.
The translation of his statement is simply, “Every country has the government it deserves.”
If the people of the United States truly believe this, and I think that many people would agree with the statement, then we should ask ourselves why we continue to elect representatives to Congress who place self-interest over the interests of the nation, and its people. We should similarly wonder why we elect powerful executives who correspondingly appoint government officials who are driven more by a political agenda than by our country’s welfare.
Perhaps it all boils down to a matter of one’s own point of view, but here we must question the logic and wisdom of any political agenda that is consistently inefficient and has proven harmful to the United States and its people. Alternatively, I suppose we could question the political understanding of voters, who have turned out in record numbers to elect George W. Bush and Barack Obama —neither of whom ever believed that the priority of the American government ought to be, and must be, the people of the United States. In the final analysis, what the American voter gave us was this: sixteen years of Mr. Bush’s clever twisting of the characterization of the term compassionate conservatism, and Mr. Obama’s globalist anti-American rhetoric.
When George Bush left office, the American economy was a disaster; we definitely needed an “America First” candidate to step forward to lead us out of difficult times. Instead, we were offered two globalists: John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain’s reputation is one of a failed navy officer and a corrupt politician; Obama had no political bona fides whatsoever —but he was black, and well-spoken, so that anyone who questioned Obama’s political legitimacy was promptly accused of being a racist. It was an effective strategy in two presidential elections; the Obama presidency became a fixed game.
What was the state of our country when Mr. Obama left office? To begin with, America has returned to the angry racism of the 1950s; Obama’s legacy includes the sudden rise of activism and black supremacists (funded in large part by George Soros) (with an anticipated “push back” by white nationalists). What happened over eight years is exactly what the American voter should have expected from a community organizer and acolyte of Saul Alinsky.
Second, the Obama presidency repressed economic growth in the United States. How amazing it is to realize that a sitting president would direct his energies more toward global affluence than the development of prosperity in his own country —particularly since the United States is the engine of the global economy. The annual GDP of the United States was 1.6% when Obama left the oval office; his claim that the US had the strongest economy in the world was pure falsehood—that ensign goes to China’s GDP of 6.9% in 2015. Obama claimed that under his presidency, the US experienced the first sustained growth in manufacturing since 1990; in fact, manufacturing had declined 2.2% from when he assumed office and manufacturing employment waned 35,000 jobs. Taxation and Obama-Care harmed the American worker; the programs contributed to a decline in disposable income 7.3% at a time when Obama was touting economic recovery. A reasonable person might ask, “recovery for whom?”
Next, even a cursory examination will reveal that Obama’s foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster for the United States and its partners around the world. Whether one wishes to discuss Russia, China, North Korea, or the Middle East, the Obama presidency has left the world in a much more dangerous position than at any time since the Soviet Era. While George Bush opened the door to an emerging Iran, the Obama presidency shattered stability in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Were it not for Obama, there may never have been ISIS and the accompanied horror they impose on the innocent. Obama’s policies created and then fueled Arab-Spring; it was Arab-Spring that triggered the migration crisis in Europe. In effect, what Obama bequeathed to Western Europe and the American people was increased global intrigue, transient alliances, political instability, and a seriously weakened American military. Russia, China, and Middle Eastern nations have not hesitated to fill the voids created by Barack Obama.
I suppose the time is right for a full stop; I’ll end by asking this question: who is most responsible for the election of George W. Bush? Hint: it’s the same folk who are most responsible for the election of Barack Obama —the American voter. The American electorate is a large and disparate group of under-educated, easily led, non-thinking citizens (and in some cases, non-citizens) who in 2000 marginally elected a self-styled compassionate conservative over a bona fide socialist, and then in 2008 elevated a socialist to the presidency. No candidate for the presidency in either of these years was “good for America,” but it is what the American people were left with after years of reelecting to high office the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, George W. Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and along with them, all of their affiliates and surrogates. The net effect of this is that at some future time, all of these glaring mistakes will lead us to a national crisis, and when that happens, the indisputable loser will be the American people.
We must therefore agree: Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle merite.
 The purpose of socialism is communism. — Vladimir Lenin