The United States of Whatever

Failing Up

credit: deviantart.com

“Be wary of Greeks bearing gifts.” Virgil

“D’oh!”  Homer Simpson

I suspect that somewhere in the universe there exists an axiom which might read as follows: Behind every promise there lurks an equivalent lie. The grander the promise the bigger the possible lie.

When Barack Obama came to office he assured his rapt followers that heretofore the seas would cease their rise and history’s arc would bend in the collective’s direction.

As president, Obama’s signature “accomplishment” was the sprawling medical program that bears his name. Under Obamacare, so went the promise, coverage and access would be available for all, and, of course, if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor. There was little, if any, mention of what might loom on the back end: Higher costs and longer waits, lesser quality and fewer doctors, not to mention continued decline in the overall health of the American people. 

Obamacare, gussied up as “The Affordable Care Act,” ran to 906 pages, accompanied by another 11,000 pages of regulations, give or take. Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.” Mr. Orwell goes to Washington.

Obama had been forewarned, yet remained undaunted. Back in the early 1990’s Bill Clinton had put his overeducated, underemployed busybody wife, Hillary, in charge of a project to revamp America’s healthcare system, which at the time accounted for 16% of GDP. After plenty of expert input, earnest chin stroking, and the production of 1500 pages of gobbledygook, Hillary and her entourage packed it in. The Big White Whale swam back to sea, and it's deep, abundant feeding ground, and that is where it remains to this day, consuming nearly 20% of GDP. 

Promises, Promises

What has evolved since the Obama years is not the feel-good utopia Obama envisioned, but, au contraire, a 16-year reich of single, increasingly hard-edged, one party rule. Critics would, of course, point to the four year Trump interregnum, but that would conveniently ignore the Democrats’ headlong march through, and capture of, the institutions; not to mention their persistent targeting of Trump - quite literally, it might now seem - on the merest of pretexts.

Trump is not alone. Many Americans now find themselves in a bullseye of sorts, or better yet, enmeshed in a matrix controlled by forces defined principally by their sheer scope and scale. These prominent nodal points would include: Big Government, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Media, Big Tech, and Big Finance. We are subject to a sprawling Ministry of Public Health which fast tracks remedies that mock “the first do no harm” ethic, while the Academic/ Non Profit/ NGO Industrial Complex operates in the shadows, and with taxpayer largesse, enforcing the approved dogma. 

The Democratic Party, the party of government, works hand in glove with this lumbering mega system as it dispenses goods, services, and, not least of all, favors in a bloodless process which rewards adherents and punishes renegades to maintain control.

On the darker side of this already dark equation lies the targeting, censoring, and harassment of those the system senses as “threats” - one of the party’s favorite words. This project enlists not just the rogue offices of the state but the brazen use of propaganda often produced under the guise of an allegedly “free press,” which has morphed into the system’s de facto information arm. In serving this role the media pursue their “fact checking” mission while echoing the government’s favored tropes regarding “disinformation,” “existential threats,” and “conspiracy theories,” as they skillfully curate the news they deem fit to print.

Intent Not Outcome

In his 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explored the fault line that divided people who tended to self-identity as “conservative” and “liberal.” 

The former group, not surprisingly, tended to be more religious and patriotic, and in favor of individual freedom and smaller government. The latter were, more or less, the converse.

But when Haidt drilled down into the data more subtle differences appeared. Conservatives were more interested in outcomes and processes. Is the idea practical? Will it work? Liberals, on the other hand, were more favorably inclined to intentions. “Fairness” was a big issue for them. In other words, if they believed  their motives were “good” or righteous, then the quality of the outcome was of secondary concern.

Obama’s gauzy, feel good presidency provided handy packaging for what would ensue: Lois Lerner going after political opponents at the IRS in a manner only Richard Nixon could dream about and then taking the Fifth and refusing to testify before Congress; Susan Rice dispatched to the Sunday talk shows to spread disinformation about a “hateful, anti Muslim video” which had nothing to with the fatal Benghazi attack; Hillary “What Difference Does it Make Now” Clinton putting classified documents on her home brew server as she geared up her 2016 campaign which included the funding of the Steele Dossier under the guise of “opposition research.” And from there, the snowball only gained momentum once Trump entered office, featuring the entrapment of Michael Flynn, the promotion of the fictive Steele dossier, the suppression of the very real Hunter Biden laptop, as the Russia collusion hoax played on an endless loop in the background.

Biden’s presidency has been of a piece with Obama’s in its effort not to bend history’s arc, but the truth. “Inflation is transitory” and “the border is secure” are the least of it, compared to the Democrats’ willingness to engage in, and encourage, plenty of hate speech when it comes to Donald Trump, and then turning around to tar him as the great inciter.

The deceptions and illusions carried over to, and on, during the Biden years are fitting, given that our current president is the embodiment of just that. Any person possessed of his faculties could discern that from early in his administration Biden was not the master of his - and that his decline was only accelerating with time. Nonetheless, those around him maintained the president’s “sharp as a tack” illusion right up to 9 P.M. EST on June 27, 2024.

Which brings us to Springfield, Ohio.

Beyond Cats and Dogs

Springfield is a city of 58,000 which during the Biden years has seen its population swell with the arrival of some 15,000 Haitian migrants, chiefly due to their being given “temporary protected status” as asylum seekers by the U.S. government. 

One might well ask who were the geniuses at the Ministry of Silly Walks who thought this demographic experiment was a good idea. Perhaps the same folks who scripted our exit from Afghanistan?

Some basic questions might have been posed on the front end of this ambitious project regarding the impacts on various components of daily life in Springfield such as public safety, housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and so on. Or perhaps one might ask if there was some sort of quid pro quo arrangement (read bribe) between the federal government and the city. This would surely be a question that would stimulate the investigative juices at, say, ABC News.

Or perhaps this was all part of the plan. In other words, there was malice aforethought. Perhaps the subtext ran along these lines: “These are people in flyover country who won’t fight back; they’re too busy just trying to get by. And besides, we need to spread all these migrants around; there are so many of them.”

And further, there was perhaps knowledge that the media would obligingly drag the issue into the weeds by focusing on whether or not neighborhood pets were being barbecued, as opposed to grannies getting run down by speeding Haitians. 

The Springfield debacle stands as a stark counterpoint to what happened a couple years back when Ron DeSantis decided to stick a toothpick into the opposition’s eye, flying 50 illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. “The Vineyard,” as it is colloquially known by its self-satisfied insiders is a legendary redoubt of powerful Democrats and their influential allies.These are the sort of people who stick signs in the front yard bearing vacuous slogans such as: “No human is illegal,” or “All are Welcome Here.” As for the backyard, that’s another story; It’s NIMBY all the way.  

Santis’ gambit was immediately portrayed as a cheap stunt by island residents and the newly arrived and inconvenient brown people were made to disappear within 24 hours. Perhaps this episode revealed something else beyond the obvious hypocrisy: People who believe they are immune to the consequences of their choices. After all, in 2020 a resounding majority, 79%, of island residents voted for Joe Biden who had signaled during his campaign that he would be more lenient regarding illegal immigration than Donald Trump. (Democrats running in statewide offices enjoyed similarly lopsided margins on Martha’s Vineyard. Massachusetts has become the latest blue “haven” that people are fleeing.)

Teaching that actions and choices have consequences is a fundamental concept that most parents go about instilling in their children early in life.

Clueless

As for immigration, logic might well suggest that the individual most qualified to explain why 15,000 Haitians would end up in Springfield, Ohio would be Kamala Harris. She, after all, is our very own “border czar,” appointed by our president, no less, to deal with this issue, which many Americans deem to be relatively important, if not urgent. 

But Ms. Harris has moved on to bigger and better things in what is becoming her trademark seamless fashion. She bombed out in the 2020 presidential primaries with roughly 0% of the vote. That freed her up to take the VP slot on the ticket which then materialized into the office itself.  Lately, she was selected for installation as the presidential candidate without a single assenting vote of her party’s electors, nor the people. Great work if you can get it.

So If she got this far by just showing up then why bother answering questions - unless you get to take the equivalent of an open book exam courtesy of the friendly hall monitors at ABC News.

Kamala Harris is free to dodge questions, while her opponent dodges bullets.

This is how “our democracy” works in America, circa 2024.