Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By
THOMAS SOWELL
IBDEditorials.com
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s,
leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to
activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since
they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less
basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to
describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the
Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to
thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece,
before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and
few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing
numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the
damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far
beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that
a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a
private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems
worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund
to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is
simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be
compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of
men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20
billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be
confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is
a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion
of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations
can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never
granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't
believe in constitutional government.
And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will
always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said,
cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the
government's power.
That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular
period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the
particular issues.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the
gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent
trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR
ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.
At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German
Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."
That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going
far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately
brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.
If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope
that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the
administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a
long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of
the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet
members are.
Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of
arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are
the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?