Much Legislation, Such Control

Can a 'Department of Government Efficiency' Truly Drain the Swamp of Corruption in American Politics? Unlikely. Here's Why:

Between January 2009 and January 2011, the 111th Congress of the United States operated with what can only be described as an unprecedented legislative zeal.

Propelled into power with a filibuster-proof majority in both the House and Senate, largely thanks to the popularity of a young senator from Illinois, the Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, embarked on an extensive legislative spree.

This period saw the enactment of 33 significant pieces of legislation, including the expansion of the S-CHIP program, the monumental $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act.

The crowning legislative achievements of this era were undoubtedly the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known colloquially as Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. These were behemoth bills, compiled from various legislative fragments that had been circulating in Congress for years, primarily crafted by lobbyists.

During the National Association of Counties' 2010 Legislative Conference, Speaker Pelosi humorously highlighted the importance of catchy acronyms in legislation. Yet, her speech is best remembered for a candid remark about the Affordable Care Act, which she said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” sparking a media frenzy. This statement drew criticism from across the political spectrum, with calls for clarification or retraction, and even comparisons to Marie Antoinette's infamous quote.

Amidst the controversy, Pelosi's speech also touched on a broader ideological agenda. She referenced Theodore Roosevelt's progressive vision from a century prior, positioning the health care reform as part of a long-standing dream to protect citizens from the perils of illness, poverty, and aging, subtly redefining historical narratives to fit the Progressive narrative which often prioritizes outcomes over strict adherence to truth.

Pelosi's invocation of Roosevelt, a Republican, was strategic, aiming to underscore bipartisanship in the pursuit of social justice. She listed numerous societal issues the new legislation aimed to address, admitting the unsustainable nature of current systems like Medicare and Medicaid, yet promising that Obamacare would not only solve these issues but also generate 4 million jobs.

Her argument was that health care should be a right, not a privilege. However, this perspective implies transforming the medical profession into a state-controlled service, where doctors are essentially told by the government what to study, where to practice, and whom to treat. This approach strips away professional autonomy, reducing the practice of medicine to a form of national service, more akin to the state-controlled systems of the early Soviet Union than the progressive ideals of early 20th-century America.

The Progressive movement, which emerged and flourished from 1890 to 1920, was characterized by a surge in social activism aimed at cleansing government of corruption and reducing the influence of political bosses. This era was also marked by a reaction to the stark economic disparities of the Gilded Age. While individual stories of upward mobility from poverty to wealth existed, Progressives advocated for systemic change under the banner of “Fairness,” arguing for societal structures that would make wealth more accessible to all.

Central to Progressive thought was the belief in using science, technology, and modern management to address societal issues. They envisioned a world where humans could be conditioned, much like children or pets, to maximize their potential within a scientifically managed economy, under the guidance of a wise and benevolent federal government.

This vision was not just about economic equality but about improving the human condition through collective effort, often at the expense of traditional values like personal responsibility, morality, and individual sovereignty. Progressives supported the idea that government intervention in economic and social affairs was necessary for the greater good, provided citizens complied with this new social contract.

The early Progressives included many sincere reformers, some driven by science, others by religious zeal, and some by a desire to meld the two. Philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie funded libraries to disseminate knowledge, while others sought to reshape the nation according to their reformist ideals. However, there were also those among them who flirted with or embraced socialist or communist ideologies, which were not traditionally aligned with American values.

Education reform was another focal point. Progressives modernized schools, expanding their reach and influence, particularly in urban areas. This led to a significant rise in the educated middle class, who were often the backbone of support for Progressive policies. The establishment of academic tenure based on scholarly output inadvertently led to left-leaning biases in education, influencing curriculum content and ideological leanings of educators.

After nearly a century of Progressive influence in education, the results have been mixed. Public high schools are graduating students lacking basic skills like reading or financial literacy, while universities are criticized for offering degrees with questionable career prospects and producing graduates more focused on personal gain than on ethical considerations.

Today's Progressive movement has diverged significantly from the ideals of figures like Theodore Roosevelt. Modern Progressivism is often characterized by its pragmatic approach, where the distinction between practicality and idealism, or between facts and values, blurs. The end is seen to justify the means, even if it involves social disruption or moral ambiguity. This evolution has led to a system where truth can be manipulated, emotions are stirred, opponents are demonized, and propaganda is employed to maintain control.

Modern Progressives advocate for inclusivity and acceptance but are often criticized for their intolerance towards dissent. Their economic policies, which focus on wealth redistribution, sometimes overlook the practical implications or fairness, prioritizing desired outcomes over rational debate. This has led to a culture where questioning these policies can result in personal or professional attacks, undermining the very principles of diversity and respect they claim to uphold.

The 2008 economic crisis, often misattributed to rampant free-market capitalism, was significantly contributed to by Progressive policies like the Community Reinvestment Act, which pressured banks to lend to less creditworthy borrowers in the name of social equity.

Politicians like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, along with banking executives like Blankfein and Paulson, played roles in either ignoring or exacerbating the financial bubbles, showcasing a mix of ideological blindness and greed, which nearly toppled the economic system that had historically supported America's prosperity.

Herbert I. London, in his essay “The Dangers of Hubris” published by the Hudson Institute in 2002, provided a sobering analysis of the pitfalls of overconfidence in governance. He highlighted the Lyndon Johnson administration's hubris in believing that with enough political support and resources, the government could solve deep-rooted social issues like poverty.

The War on Poverty, despite massive financial investment since the 1960s, failed to eradicate these problems, yet the faith in governmental solutions persists, often ignoring historical lessons and the inherent limitations of public policy.

This excessive pride, or hubris, stands in stark contrast to simple confidence based on proven ability. London's critique warns that while confidence can lead to success, arrogance can lead to downfall.

An emblematic case of this Progressive hubris is the city of Detroit, Michigan. Selected as a Model City under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, Detroit was supposed to be transformed through government intervention.

Congressmen like John Dingell and John Conyers, who were instrumental in pushing these policies through Congress, continued to be re-elected, showcasing a blind faith in governmental solutions despite the evident failure of the programs.

These policies aimed not only at physical urban renewal but also at social rehabilitation and community empowerment. However, the result has been ongoing urban decay, with the local populace still clinging to the hope of federal aid as a panacea.

More recent dynamics within the U.S. government echo these historical missteps. Barack Obama, who started as a community organizer in Chicago, epitomized this progressive belief in governmental omnipotence. His campaign promises of transparency and responsiveness quickly shifted towards a more centralized control once in office, echoing the teachings of Saul Alinsky.

Obama surrounded himself with like-minded individuals, often referred to as “czars,” who implemented policies that expanded governmental oversight into every facet of life, attempting to mold the U.S. into a European-style bureaucratic state where the line between government service and state control blurs.

This approach by the 111th Congress, under Obama's leadership, can be seen as an attempt to realize a command-and-control economy, where government intervention is not just a tool for public service but a pervasive force in both public and private spheres. This ethos is encapsulated in the chilling phrase Ronald Reagan once described as the most terrifying in the English language: “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

Adherents to Progressive ideology are often well-educated, reflecting the movement's origins in applying scientific methodology to social governance. This movement, initially aimed at countering the excesses of the Gilded Age, sought to excise subjective elements like religion and tradition from the public sphere.

However, over time, this has evolved into a humanistic ideology that prioritizes emotional responses over objective analysis. Critical thinking and logical reasoning, once hallmarks of education, have been downplayed in many academic settings, allowing Progressive thought to permeate deeply into the educational system, influencing students to question or even disdain foundational American values like individual sovereignty, capitalism, and moral absolutes.

It is important to clarify that the critique here does not advocate for a theocratic government, recognizing the historical pitfalls where religious fervor has led to tyranny. Conversely, a complete dismissal of spiritual or metaphysical elements in human governance has its own dangers, potentially leading to an over-reliance on human reason devoid of moral grounding.

The founding documents of the United States frequently reference a higher authority, suggesting an acknowledgment of something beyond mere human design in the governance of society. Progressivism, by elevating human will above all else, reveals its own narcissistic tendencies. The policies driven by this ideology have often proven to be unsustainable, leading to a societal decline rather than the promised utopia.

The current state of affairs shows a media landscape that has largely shifted from objective journalism to advocacy, serving as a mouthpiece for Progressive agendas. This shift is evident in the uniformity of nightly news broadcasts, which often present the same narrative (down to the exact same wording), suggesting a coordinated effort to shape public perception.