Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Yes, and that requires a fundamental process through which they can represent. Government is, basically, process. And the process by which we are governed determines the limits of our freedoms. As well, therefor, it determines to what degree we are dependent rather than free.
So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"? Shouldn't we want most of what gets done to be at more local levels by those most responsive to what our communities want, rather than to be done by one-size-fits-all distant bureaucracies? Shouldn't we demand that the distant federal Presidency, rather than inserting itself into the daily lives of the entire population, be limited to a specifically designated process rather than governing as an all-powerful autocrat?
The "progressive" process is basically fiat rule by autocratic bureaucracy. The Bush and Clinton dynasties are separated in their progressiveness only by marginal degrees. They are both prone to the progressive concept of President as one who is not limited by a constitutional process, but one who expands power well beyond the scope of the Constitution, one slightly more "progressive" than the other.
We are pretty much stuck into the progressive process of government now, but if we want to reverse course toward a more limited government process, the separation in ideology of the candidate we vote for must be in large rather than small degrees different than either Clinton or Bush. There may not be a perfect candidate at this time, but if we wish to "go in the right direction," we must wean ourselves from the notion of The President as the driver of getting all things "done." And we must promote candidates who respect us as individuals and execute, "do," the laws that we, through our representatives, enact as the will of the people, rather than execute their own personal whim and will.
|
So, shouldn't we be concerned as voters with what process those we vote for intend to govern more than what they intend to "get done"?
No, I am more concerned with what they will try to get done, as long as the process through which they do it, is constitutional. And so long as their "to do" list isn't intrusive. I want someone who will appoint judges who don't see their role as legislative activists; I want someone who is willing to say out loud that we are at war with Islamic jihadists; someone who believes in the free market; someone who concedes that SS and Medicre are, in their current form, a top-heavy Ponzi scheme about to tip over, etc...Per the liberal narrative, Hilary will get every single one of these things wrong.