The government we deserve

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[1] 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.


[1] The purpose of socialism is communism.  — Vladimir Lenin

This entry was posted in Society. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The government we deserve

  1. Kid says:

    It is hard to add anything to this, but one thing that truly amazes me still is the number of people who just believed everything obama said, from economy, to soup to nuts. Then that h. clinton could get more than 10 votes is beyond imagination to me. I have no hope for America’s survival.

    I’ll also bet money that when it becomes obvious that America is no more, it will be blamed on the republicans. It already is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang says:
      In the aftermath of our Republic, it won’t matter who get’s blamed. Right? The problem, IMO, extends far beyond party politics. America is rotting from the inside out, and while partisanship is an effective contributor, the blame rests with the people who clearly are too stupid to be allowed to vote. As I said, what led anyone in NY to vote for Clinton in the first place? She would never had a presidential campaign were it not for her senatorial successes, and we never would have had an Al Gore, or a John Kerry, or a John McCain, had voters recognized these scoundrels for what they were back then. I groan.


    • Kid says:

      Well, there it is.


  2. John M. Berger says:

    “The American electorate is a large and disparate group of under-educated, easily led, non-thinking citizens (and in some cases, non-citizens)”

    AMEN! Although it will probably never happen, there should be some tightening of the requirements to vote (now there are practically none). Another big problem is that too many of the, so called, “educated” are really just [indoctrinated] and therefore, perhaps, even more dangerous than the “under-educated………..non-thinking citizens”. OK,OK we know that Trump isn’t perfect but does his presence at 1600 Pennsylvania indicate some sort of an awakening-just asking?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mustang says:
    Open voting was the scheme hatched by Cloward-Piven, and its worked quite well. Their plan, as you probably recall, was to so over-burden the welfare state that the government would collapse upon itself. Now I ask you, were these communist progressives concerned about the plight of the poor, or were they seeking a vehicle to destroy our government? The fact is that Obama implemented many similar programs during his administration, and it did result in government implosion.

    We knew this before the 2012 elections, and yet Americans lined up to reelect Obama (some of them more than once). We ought to have an exam before allowing anyone to vote … seriously.

    As to the mechanisms for voting, it is possible to establish (within the states) fraud-proof elections. Voter ID is one solution, which I whole-heartedly support, but why not do it even more simply? Why not fingerprint ID?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. John M. Berger says:

    “Why not fingerprint ID?”
    I like that better. Photos can be indistinguishable. Also, as I’ve said many times before; there should be an exam.


  5. Jersey Jack says:

    I just love, love, love this house…each and every Friday is too long for me to wait from the previous Friday. I just get so fulfilled and educated by God and more and more about our past, present and future can be found here. I salute you, Colonel. You’re a damn national treasure. I just don’t need any more than here, Kid and Geeez.


  6. Jersey Jack says:
    “…were it not for her senatorial successes, and we never would have had an Al Gore, or a John Kerry, or a John McCain, had voters recognized these scoundrels for what they were back then. I groan.”

    Please, remind me of just what her successes were as a senator? That she wasn’t about to relinquish her reigns of power? That being FL for 8 years and her success in thwarting her husband from being kicked out of office had she not denigrated the women he raped, groped and assaulted from the time he held any office right up to the Presidency? And she actually convinced people that the women were at fault and just right-wing conspirators and trailer trash? I cannot think of one item beneficial to NewYork or the country while her highness sat in the Senate and cultivated and consolidated her power to seek another, higher office…and to begin their life of kickbacks and the easy road to being multi-millionaires. Which despite the proof that the “Charitable Foundation” was nothing more than a criminal enterprise and conduit masking the flow of millions into their pockets, via the state department. And we all know that those emails were a deliberate means of keeping the secrets from the eyes of our overseers. And again, we ask…where’s the justice? Where is the law? Why is she free and not in jail for these obvious crimes against we the people. Sessions and Trump are disappointing us. I was so convinced that he’d charge right in after her with subpoenas and indictments.

    That Kerry somehow had escaped true justice and the wrath of all military survivors of the Viet Nam era. That he had luckily and mysteriously escaped fragging while he was in the Navy or certainly after, when he turned on all those vets in his winter soldier testimony wearing those ribbons he accumulated in a 6-month tour? Those same ribbons he threw over the fence ( probably to Jane Fonda waiting on the other side? ) Why wasn’t he stopped then? Or why didn’t those words alone be enough to cause outrage and enough blowback to ruin his chances for any political office? It took 32 years to end his shot at the Oval Office! I guess we can be thankful enough for that alone?

    Unfortunately, we never thought he’d be the one who pushed through the terrible deal with the Iranians, thus sealing a career of treason and leaving future generations at peril from the smarter than we are Persians.

    And Gore? Another crook and a spawn of a true southern Dem legacy of racism and provincialism. Who could have been stopped when we learned of his taking illegal “donations” from Chicoms? Fours huge mistakes and poster people for trials and convictions in any other country on the planet. I suppose we need to be more “backward” and less “sophisticated”. Perhaps like Romania did when dealing with their oppressors. Or maybe like mother Russia?


    • Jersey Jack says:

      BTW..I intentionally left John McPain out, for obvious reasons.The man is a fraud. And a lousy pilot.


    • Mustang says:
      I do not see many Clinton successes while serving as a senator, but there is little doubt that she was “successful” in becoming a US senator. Had she failed in her bid for that seat, we would not be talking about a Hillary Clinton role in recent national politics today. How would America today be different without any of those bottom-feeders I mentioned in my post? Could we be a better country today had Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, or Barack Obama lost their bid for a senate seat?”


  7. John M. Berger says:
    “Could we be a better country today had Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, or Barack Obama lost their bid for a senate seat?”

    YES, if for no other reason it would have indicated a “better” electorate than what existed to place them there. Sadly, that wasn’t the case and it still isn’t. The same scumbag political ilk exists and the same “Useful Idiots” stand-by to accommodate their survival!


  8. A republic, If you can keep it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s