…and then denying it. Pete Sessions, NRCC Chairman, sends out regular e-mail alerts. Every single one of them can be interpreted as “Look at those dirty rotten Democrats! Give us money!”
Today’s e-mail alert title was “Threatening is Not Governing”. Even though it’s completely wrong of course, I might be tempted to see that title as a sign of some positive development in Mr. Sessions’ understanding in that it touches upon an important point, but I know him too well.
What he referred to as “threatening” was Obama’s “threat” to “…veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase.” That contains so many layers of idiocy that I won’t even get into it. Forget the president and that it’s fully within his job description to “threaten” to veto anything Congress pukes out.
The point is that any and all governing is threatening. Every law, rule, ordinance, every tax or restriction, every subsidy– they’re all backed by threats, and all government threats include a group of people with guns who are ready, willing, and I dare say eager to make good on those threats.
I’d say I’m hopeful that even Pete Sessions has stumbled upon an important truth, but he of all people will never admit to understanding it. Maybe, since he has broached the subject, more of us can expand on it.
Mr. Sessions; I see your accusations in much the same way I’d see a drunk sitting at a bar with a martini in his hands accusing the drunk next to him of being a drunk. Only worse– the typical drunk probably isn’t going to work every day to find new ways to formulate threats against the whole of The People.
While you are correct, to Sessions’ credit, the President’s recent silly speech on “jobs” including rhetoric about how horrible it was that the other guys were taking “obstructionist” positions … to which the President makes this obstructionist threat.
The penalty is always death
I used to live in Sesson’s district and that guy is terrible. He has to be one of the slimiest politicians in congress. He has absolutely no principles other than getting reelected and I don’t really get why the people in Dallas vote for him as he at all conservative. This was a guy who couldn’t think of one thing to cut after going on about how Obama was spending too much.
Certainly Obama is severely impaired, for a number of reasons including his upbringing and associations. OK, he’s a communist, but that wasn’t the point. The point is; regardless of who’s in charge and regardless of the intentions, or whether it is just or unjust, ALL government operates via the use of threats.
P.J. O’Rorke, I think it was, years ago came up with the “Gun to Your Mother’s Head Test” to evaluate laws. Joe’s “Jews in the Attic Test” is related in spirit but much more scientific, plus it applies only to specific classes of laws or government actions. The GTYMHT invites us to ask whether we’d put a gun to our mother’s head, and threaten her, to get any particular thing done. If the answer is “yes” then it may be a just law. If it’s “no” then don’t do it. It’s wrong. It’s antithetical to the principles of liberty and decency. It’s a silly exercise in that I don;t think there is anything I’d need to put a gun to my mother’s head for, ever. The other problem of course is that SOME people would put a gun to their mother’s head for extremely frivolous reasons. Still it’s a good way of illustrating the fact that all government consists, in effect, of a gun to your mother’s head, or “threats”.