Bipartisanship in the defense of big government
Think about everything Democrats have been saying about Trump since he became the nominee. Why would they want to give the Trump White House more power?
I’ve long been critical of both Republicans and Democrats for not looking for common ground to advance their own views of freedom in the United States. There are always issues of commonality, or at least issues that the other side’s rhetoric makes it impossible to oppose, that could be introduced by the party that is out of power.
When President Clinton claimed that he was the victim of an out-of-control prosecutor, Republicans should have introduced legislation protecting people outside the beltway from out-of-control prosecutors.
When Democrats claimed to be worried about a President Trump’s executive overreach, they should have announced that they would support any Supreme Court Justice on Trump’s pre-election list: all of them would be strong opponents of an imperial presidency.
In my opinion, Donald Trump is mostly the fault of the political establishment, for failing to take advantage of opportunities to advance freedom in a bipartisan manner. Whoever is out of power complains about their power-hungry opposition, and whoever is in power uses that power. When politicians fail to live up to their campaign promises, voters will turn to non-politicians.
Democrats have decided, in the face of Trump, to continue blindly opposing literally everything he does, even things they called for earlier, such as firing James Comey.
But of course there is one policy they’re willing to work with Republicans on: increasing the power of an imperial presidency.
Why, after complaining that Trump is using the power of the White House to oppress Democrats, would Democrats introduce a resolution that makes it easier for Trump to act unilaterally? Why would they do this ahead of the 2018 elections, an off-year that traditionally goes in their favor?
Because they don’t believe what they’re saying. And because they know that regulations that cannot be repealed are a ratchet in favor of government control over everything. It is more important to Democrats to make it harder to repeal regulations than it is to maintain or even strengthen the ability to repeal Trump’s regulations.
I wrote during the election that the beltway establishment probably preferred a Donald Trump presidency to someone like Ted Cruz who would almost certainly heavily reduce Washington’s influence in our daily lives. Democrats are proving that with this legislation: backing Trump, and increased regulations, rather than introducing the kind of legislation Republicans always say they want in off years that would further reign in the imperial presidency.
The fact of the matter is, both their opposition to Donald Trump and their opposition to regulatory oversight stems from the same thing: a strong opposition to our right to govern ourselves.
In response to The Bureaucracy Event Horizon: Government bureaucracy is the ultimate broken window.
- Congressional Review Act at Wikipedia
- “The law empowers Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, to overrule a regulation.”
- Democrats Are Trying to Repeal the Tool Congress Has to Hold the Regulatory State Accountable: Jason Pye at FreedomWorks
- “Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) have introduced legislation that would repeal one of the tools that give Congress greater oversight of actions taken by federal agencies.”
- Election lessons: The Supreme Court and the New Tone
- If the left really wants to reign in Donald Trump, they should force him to stick to the list of potential Supreme Court nominations that he announced before the election.
- How to counter Trump’s immigration policy
- When reasonable people are untrustworthy, it’s no surprise that voters turn to unreasonable people.
- Ted Cruz: The anti-extremism candidate?
- Do we really have two political extremes, or do we just have two very close sides that talk extremely different? Politicians can combat the increasingly extreme rhetoric in politics by, first, doing what they promise, and promising what they can do; and, second, by using rather than bypassing the legislative process that the founders designed specifically to dampen extremism.
- This Is A Coup Against Our Right To Govern Ourselves: Kurt Schlichter at Townhall
- “…it’s an attempt to ensure that we never again have the ability to disrupt the bipartisan D.C. cabal’s permanent supremacy by inserting a chief executive who refuses to kiss their collective Reid. This is a coup against us. It’s a coordinated campaign by liberals and their allies in the bureaucracy and media to once and for all ensure their perpetual rule over us.” (Memeorandum thread)
- The Trial of Bill Clinton
- Bill Clinton deserves a fair trial: or at least, as fair as any of us would get under similar circumstances.
- We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs!
- “I didn’t get a harrumph out of that guy.”
More Democrats
- Roundup of Reactions to the Democrat’s Latest Corrupt Lawfare
- There can be no comity in the face of corruption the size of New York’s and DC’s. Lawfare is war, and it must be treated like war.
- Illinois Nazis and Lincoln’s Democrats
- An anecdote about other people’s money and other people’s time that I’ve had sitting around for a while.
- The Life of Stephen A. Douglas
- Where Abraham Lincoln’s conservative principles made a flawed man better, Stephen A. Douglas’s belief in the responsibility of government elites for managing lesser men made him far worse.
- Slavery is barbarism
- Of course progressives believe slavery is a net economic positive. When the left talks rights, they’re talking about the power of government to force people to both provide something and to deny it.
- The left’s vicious racial shaming
- The left is waging a war against struggling mothers—all in service of creating racial discord and shoring up their identity politics.
- 17 more pages with the topic Democrats, and other related pages
More reigning in bad laws
- A one-hundred-percent rule for traffic laws
- Laws should be set at the point at which we are willing and able to jail 100% of offenders. We should not make laws we are unwilling to enforce, nor where we encourage lawbreaking.
- A free market in union representation
- Every monopoly is said to be special, that this monopoly is necessary. And yet every time, getting rid of the monopoly improves service, quality, and price. There is no reason for unions to be any different.
- The Last Defense against Donald Trump?
- When you’ve dismantled every other defense, what’s left except the whining? The fact is, Democrats can easily defend against Trump over-using the power of the presidency. They don’t want to, because they want that power intact when they get someone in.
- The Sunset of the Vice President
- Rather than automatically sunsetting all laws (which I still support), perhaps the choice of which laws have not fulfilled their purpose should go to an elected official who otherwise has little in the way of official duties.
- The pseudo-scientific state and other evils
- In 1922, following the first world war, G.K. Chesterton discovered to his dismay that the evils of the scientifically-managed state had not been killed by its application in Prussia. Unfortunately, it was also not killed by its applications in Nazi Germany.
- 20 more pages with the topic reigning in bad laws, and other related pages