home > archive > 2007 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

Liberals want to be "Commander" in Chief

By J.J. Jackson
web posted June 11, 2007

There are a lot of liberals out there vying for the Presidency in 2008.  Some have that little "D" for Democrat next to their name while others have an "R" for Republican.  And we haven't even gotten into discussing other parties infested with liberals like the Greens, Socialists and Communists; the latter of which will probably just throw support behind the Democratic Party nominee anyway when all is said and done.

All these candidates have their eyes set on the Presidency and the role of "Commander in Chief" because liberals see their roles in government as one of "commanding" America how to act.  Someone should tell them however that is not what the founders meant by the President being "Commander in Chief".

Liberals want to be the "commander" of our lives, institute "command" economies and all the wonderfully failed policies of the past.  They want to "command" us all how to save for our retirements, to "command" that we must provide for the retirement of others at gun point and under penalty of imprisonment, to "command" that we must have government run health care, to "command" that we must pay for the health care of others that might not even want it, to "command" how many miles to the gallon our cars get, to "command" how many gallons of water our toilets can hold, and so on.  They want to "command" us right down the road already traveled by so many into oblivion.

They do this, of course, because they claim to believe in compassion.  But they have no real compassion for those that they saddle with the yoke of government and enslave into the service of others.  Benjamin Franklin wisely said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."  By that standard our republic ended long ago.

But then again, what did he know right?  He was just some old white guy of European decent that helped form a nation that enslaved poor black people and suppress the rights of women.  Well, one can also argue that he helped form a nation that fought long and hard to free the slaves and give women equal rights too.  But that wouldn't fit the template.  So we'll just ignore that.

Freedom isn't easy.  And it sure as heck isn't perfect.  But it works pretty darn well when it is embraced.

Today, contrary to Franklin's admonitions, we've become a nation full of people voting themselves money and requiring that others pay the tab.  We have become a nation all too willing to accept a "Commander" in Chief, or even Chiefs when you consider all the would-be "commanders" in Congress.

We have bastardized what were once grand ideas and a sound blue print, save a few blemishes, and departed from the principles of liberty while seeking out our next "commander" to lead us.  We have ditched the concept of a confined and limited scope of federal government to tax and spend clearly described by James Madison in Federalist 41:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"

We, as Americans, are all in this, the great and continuing experiment of America, together.  And if you listen to the carefully worded rhetoric of would-be "commanders" seeking our votes in 2008 you might be lulled into a sense of believing that they are right there with us.  Like when Hillary Clinton says, "I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society".

That is a pretty broad and perfectly couched statement and it is a sentiment that, without looking at her proposals, and proposals by other liberals, anyone would tend to agree with.  But the devil, as they say, is always in the details.  Her idea of being "in this together" is having government confiscate the wealth of others who have worked for it and which has been freely given in exchange for services.  Or as Hillary puts it, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  How nice.  But I already have a mommy and I have grown up and don't really need another.

This is also the same woman who proclaimed that she wanted to seize oil company profits so the federal government could better use.  Bet that makes all of you out there with 401ks, union retirements, pensions and IRAs invested in the oil companies happy right?

It is not just Hillary Clinton that desires to be our "commander".  Barack Obama, once you wade through all his similar "we're in this together" speak designed to lull Americans to sleep has the same desires and goals stating "Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy." (Obamaforillinois.com May 2, 2004) and dictating ("commanding") through government force what wages must be paid: "Obama voted to increase the minimum wage to $6.50 an hour" (Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America" Jun 21, 2004)

When did we stop believing in freedom?  When did we stop believing that people making their choices and rising and falling by the virtue of those choices was so bad?  And when did we start looking for someone to "command" us from on high?

Have we not seen how poorly that works?  Have we not seen the utter collapse of "command" economies and nations like the former Soviet Union and even Castro's Cuba?  Have we been so blind to the havoc wreaked by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in the past months?  Have we not witnessed the anemic growth of even just soft socialist nations in Europe?

Have we really degraded so much as a culture where a "Commander" in Chief is more preferable to the blessings of liberty? ESR

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the lead editor of Conservative News & Opinion – The Land of the Free and also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com.


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR

Musings - ESR's blog

Submit to Digg

1996-2019, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.