...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

October 04, 2005

Just A Little Pet Peeve

i was listening to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home tonight and i heard a conservative caller from San Francisco say something that really bothered me. The caller paraphrased Bush the Elder's response to criticism that he had flip-flopped on his famous "voodoo economics" quote after Reagan selected him for VP. Supposedly, G.H.W. Bush said something to the effect that "Before Reagan picked me I owed him my discretion, afterwards I owed him my loyalty." The gist of the caller's analogy was that we conservatives owe the president our loyalty, i.e. our trust.

We owe him no such thing. i voted for president Bush twice. He serves at my pleasure and at the pleasure of the American voter. i don't owe him or any other politician my loyalty. On the contrary, they owe me. That is our system of government. i just want this to be clear, because i think most Americans suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic philosophy by which our nation was founded. It's not just a cute little theory that some old guys in powdered wigs made up. I believe it is Truth.

Do these words sound familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]
In other words, they work for us. If any loyalty is owed, it is owed by the government, including the executive, to the people. We hold all the cards because we have rights, which come from God Almighty. The government has no rights, only powers, which come from us.

So anyone who says i owe my loyalty, or my trust to any government official, evan a president whom i like a lot, is simply mistaken and needs to take a refresher course in American History, preferably by a professor who knows what he's talking about.

Now i'm just taking the long way around, to make a minor semantic point. But these things do piss me off because i often wonder how people can be so dense.

Posted by annika, Oct. 4, 2005 | TrackBack (1)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Technically you're right. Practically, you're wrong. There's a war out there, and we are on one side of it, whether we want to be or not. He's our general, good, bad, or ugly. We don't have to love him right or wrong. We can be disappointed, pissed even, but we're not going to go support the midnight channel swimmer Ted.

Posted by: Casca on Oct. 4, 2005


If you are talking about me, let me clarify. You do not OWE George W. Bush anything, but you OWE yourself the opportunity to at least wait for the hearings to see what you can learn about the woman to whom he has entrusted his place in history.

I have enough faith in his choice, one made based upon vastly more knowledge of the individual than most appointments, that my President, the guy to whom I entrusted my sacred vote, my money and my name, will make the right choice.

Remember these words: "...our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor..."?

Our Founders trusted each other; I choose to place my trust in God and his present messenger who is delivering us from Evil. Remember, it could have been Gore or Kerry.

Me, I like it right where it is right now. My prediction is (liberally quoting Rich Galen in Mullings)that the Liberals will cool to her and the Conservatives will warm, but we shall see.

Posted by: shelly on Oct. 4, 2005

Great point Annie. There is something deraded on the nationalist right these days that wants to engage in a sort of hero-worship of Bush. Not only is he in particular unworthy of such praise, but such treatment is anathema to our Republican traditions.

Further, on this choice in particular, it is owed no deference whatsoever. There are hundreds of other more obviously qualified people than Miers and there is no other reason to assume Bush picked her other than a strong personal working relationship and friendship and the fact she's a woman. That relationship is completely irrelevant to her task as an independent judge with life tenure, and it requires one to suspend reason to think this person with no signficant government, academic, writing, or other appellate and constitutional credentials is up to the challenge. The choice of Miers is sickening.

Posted by: Roach on Oct. 5, 2005

Speaking of Professor Hewitt.....is it just me, or will he defend anything the Bush Administration does? At times, he appears mortified by the possibility of diverse opinions on the Right. He talks the talk about "a big tent" yada yada yada. But listen to his show and pay attention to how he responds to conservatives who don't tow the Republican party line. Regardless if the person makes a reasonable argument, he will respond like the person suggested 2 + 2 = 5. Don't get me wrong, I like and usually agree with Hugh; but,personally, I find Medved and Praeger to be more interesting and provacative.

Posted by: Blu on Oct. 5, 2005