Thursday, June 12, 2008

A Perfect Storm

And it's been brewing for a long time.

The Founding Fathers understood that throwing off the tyranny of a monarch could, without a carefully crafted constitution, easily be replaced by the tyranny of the masses.

Yet the masses can never hold power--it must be concentrated. But a populace can be manipulated into believing that they have a say in decisions that affect them. Or that somehow a system can work in greater fairness.

(personal note--My blogging has fallen off in frequency these past few months as a growing sense of doom great change has overcome me.)

I am an avid reader (and occasional commenter) at the excellent Gates of Vienna that is mostly focused on political happenings in Western Europe, Scandinavia and the UK. In a guest essay (more of a book review) I came across this quote from one of the earliest planners of the European Union:
The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organized world of tomorrow. — Jean Monnet, Memoir
Chilling words to me for two reasons. The EU by any measure is a socialist, near borderless entity with a managed capitalist economy and because I regard Monnet's reference to the sovereign nations of the past as meaning he concluded the US to be one, as well, especially in light of the organized world of tomorrow.

I've believed in the inherent goodness of my country for a long time and I've believed equally that our government mostly gets it right because people are smart enough (mostly) to vote the better candidate into office. The 2006 mid-term elections shook that belief for a while until I realized that it was a vote driven by anger and frustration largely fanned by a complicit media and a highly organized and motivated DNC.

Maybe the country will turn this all around and throw the rascals responsible for our current misery out. But it's looking less and less likely to me. JB Williams at the New Media Journal has a fine piece today highlighting the stupidity of voters and the socialists progressive members of Congress.

Then there's the candidate:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
I'm trying to get the full understanding of that statement. Aren't OPEC nations already having a say in how I drive my car? And countries to our south that send their (literally) unwashed to pick and process our spinach and tomatoes have made sure that I can't eat as much as I want.

Obama knows most of us (the "productive") are taxed. And most of us are reasonably self-moderating in food consumption and have been forced to limit our driving. He has to know that. So what is he really saying? I ask this because it sounds to me that under his leadership there would be a supranational body that will determine from where and to whence resources flow. Like the EU.

Unlike the EU which has been working since 1958's Treaty of Rome to this very day's Irish Referendum (the last nation to allow its citizens a direct vote on the subject) this great change is to happen in less than a decade. If Obama wins and the Democrats retain their majority in congress it could happen in a year.

What could such an immense change trigger for us? We may (collectively) be stupid enough to pull the same levers in November but what will be the result when families with $100K incomes must start living like families with $35K incomes?

An equally important question arises. Are those who have organized for so very long in hopes of reaching this dream--have they not anticipated what kind of reaction might ensue? Or are there already plans and alliances with authorities?

What started in Spain has now spread throughout Europe as those that transport the food and goods cannot now afford to deliver them. Media are careful to use the word "protest" but when someone is killed and a truck is firebombed the word "riot" comes across as more accurate.

Yeah. I'm speculating that such a drastic change might provoke otherwise peaceable folks to "protest".

No comments: