THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Fellow Systocrats:

I received an email the other day entitled "Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson," which features a number of quotes from our third president intended to demonstrate that Obama's stimulus plan and proposed budget are ill-advised and otherwise straight up "un-American."  Yeah.  Notably, these "Friends of Jefferson" did not utter a word of protest during the last eight years, despite the fact that ol' Mr. Jefferson, who envisioned America as a republic of small farmers, would have vehemently raised most or all of the points below in objection to the ill-advised policies of the Bush administration, which in 18th century terms most closely resemble those of Alexander Hamilton and his High Federalists.  

Where the hell is "Weezie" when you need her? She'd set things straight if she were here.  But I digress . . .  

Yes, any true fan of Jefferson's legacy would have circulated this email during the Bush years.  Yet, the entire text of this email does not appear on the Internet until November 14, 2008, a few days after Obama became president-elect of the U.S.

What's particularly disturbing about this email is that it appears to be inciting the American people to armed rebellion!   (Allow me to feign shock and disbelief for a moment . . . )  Gee, now I wonder . . .  who stands to lose under Obama's proposed plans to rescue our Bush-whacked economy?  Could it be the rich and powerful, who, after 8 years of tax breaks and corporate welfare under Dubya are now contemplating the end of a near unprecedented free-for-all whereby the rich looted the public trust at their pleasure?  Hmmm . . . .

Of course, I didn't receive this email from a wealthy person.  This email was sent by an individual who will benefit from Obama's proposed budget.  Furthermore, my sense is that this email is being circulated exclusively to the non-wealthy, folks like you and me.  Apparently, regular folks like us are concerned about Obama's socialist policies.  And I hear these people.  Gosh, it'd be a real drag to have the government create a job for me when I can't otherwise find one, or to help me stay in my home when I can't pay my mortgage cause I lost my job through no fault of my own, or to not have to choose between paying my mortgage and paying for health care, especially if I have a serious medical condition.   Clearly, all of that sucks. 

It's not surprising, then, that us regular folks simply aren't buying into all that "socialist" hype, even when a guy like Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, says that Obama's budget "makes the vast majority of Americans much better off." 

Now, it's one thing to criticize Obama's massive budget and stimulus plan.  I can certainly understand why Obama's plan to restart our economy could be the subject of legitimate, rational non-partisan debate, although personally, I have yet to hear anyone propose a viable alternative. 

But armed rebellion?  Against the Obama administration?  Fought by people who stand to GAIN from his initiatives?  

Enough said.  Here are the relevant parts of the email, along with my mostly off-the-cuff responses:

Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson

John Kennedy once said to an assembled group of scholars in the White House, " I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. 

The quotes below could prove his point.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

This is a not-so-veiled stab at Obama's plan to increase taxes for the rich and otherwise divert a larger share of our tax dollars to pay for the "socialist programs" referenced above.  To me, though, this quote makes more sense when applied to the last eight years, when Bush and his cronies took from the non-wealthy (those who would work) and gave to the rich (defense and reconstruction contractors, large corporations, etc., i.e. those looking to amass as much wealth as possible with minimum effort). 

Plus, there's a difference between those who would not work and those who can't.  I think everyone, Obama included, agrees that capable people that refuse to work should not receive a dime in aid.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.  A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.  

I find it simply incredible that after Dubya nearly doubled the outstanding public debt (from approximately 5.7 trillion dollars to approx. 10.7 trillion), largely through irresponsible government spending that did nothing to improve the condition of the vast majority of Americans, the right now claims that we should be more fiscally responsible!  Again, where was this email when Bush was spending billions of taxpayer dollars a month on a frivolous war in Iraq?  The only remedy for the current economic crisis is to spend in order to create jobs and stimulate lending.  Tax cuts do NOT create jobs, and the market is NOT going to correct itself at this point unless we put people to work.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from  wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Again, are we talking about the last eight years, when the Bush administration wasted billions of our tax dollars on a war that was supposed to make us safer?  Re: the anticipated "welfare state" argument, see my comments above.  

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. 

Of course, in 1800, nearly every government in the world was either a monarchy or an oligarchy.  These days, there are many examples of successful Social Democracies with expansive, state-run "welfare programs" where the standard of living is higher than it is here in the U.S.  

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  

Great idea.  Let's turn the entire U.S. into the Wild West, circa 1850-1900.  Because as a society, we've clearly demonstrated that private citizens can act responsibly when entrusted with firearms.

Of course, now I'm gonna have to go buy a gun to protect myself against the people who say they need guns to protect themselves from people who want to take their guns away.  People like me, I guess. (Sigh).  

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. 

Oh, so THAT'S what they were getting at in the last paragraph . . . Let me understand this - after eight years of the rich and powerful in this country diverting our tax dollars into their pockets under every frivolous rationale they could think of, we're only NOW complaining of tyranny because Obama is going to impose a modest tax hike on the richest 5% and otherwise try to improve the standard of living for the average American citizen?  Beware, my friends - this is the propaganda of the rich and powerful.  These arguments are not being made on your behalf . . . 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Here, Jefferson is expressing his cautious approval of Shay's Rebellion, an armed uprising of farmers in Massachusetts.  These farmers, after unsuccessfully petitioning the MA Senate to reform corrupt lending practices that resulted in mass foreclosures and imprisonment, organized to forcibly prevent courts from entering these judgments.

Am I supposed to understand that a second American revolution, while apparently NOT warranted under Bush, a man that subverted the Constitution in every way he could think of, IS warranted under Obama, who has the unfortunate task of cleaning up the steaming Monticello-sized turd that Dubya left in the Oval Office for him? 

Is anyone really buying this crap?  

To purchase the Jefferson print featured above, please click here.  

Posted by Tom Douglas at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)