Bush Calls Out "Purveyors of False Populism," M.O.W. Thinks "Oh, the Irony!"

Like many of you, we watched President Bush give his last State of the Union last night. We found it amusing that Mr. Bush seems to think that everything is going just great, mostly, and if only Congress will pass his magic bullet stimulus package without delay and if they will only stop putting earmarks on all of the really awesome bills that he wants passed, then everything would be just perfect.

M.O.W. would like to be clear that she has hated, continues to hate, and will forever hate George W. Bush--both the man and the presidency. She can't even look at his smirking little face without getting very, very angry. Indeed, we believe that he is a criminal who belongs in jail. Our hatred is almost enough to make us say something unpleasant.

We have many reasons for opposing Mr. Bush, but our top five are:

1. Complicity in stealing the 2000 election.

2. Getting America into a holy war for oil.

3. Consolidating power in the Executive Branch and perverting the Constitution for his own gain.

4. Failure to recognize and solve the problems with the war, the economy, health care, the environment, etc.

5. His false populism.

Our dear friend Stirling Newberry has an excellent post along these lines over at the Agonist today, and we would not like to repeat what has already been said so well by him, but we would like to focus a little on our number 5--Bush's false populism--especially as it was evident in last night's SOTUS.

Last night President Bush offered a rousing justification for the actions of government:

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures."

Yes! How could we not say yes! to this Mr. Bush? Indeed, Americans are nominally empowered to make wise decisions and improve the future, but we say, what are you doing to empower the people to make decisions and improve the future? You know very well that you have not, you are not, and that you shall not empower the people in anyway. In fact, you know that you have run a presidency designed to empower you at the expense of the people. In fact, your championing the power of the people here is merely "eulogistic covering"--as Kenneth Burke would have called it--for you to hide behind in order to advocate for your own agenda, which has very little to do with empowering the people to improve the future and has much to do with you handing out gifts and graff for your preferred constituencies: churches, corporations, and rich folks.

You do not care about empowering the people Mr. Bush, admit it.

Yet, the front half of your speech and your conclusion were riddled with such talk of trusting and empowering the people. Indeed, you only did not "trust the people" when you spoke of Social Security, Immigration, and your War on Terror. Each instance when you did "trust the people," you used your supposed trust of the people to advocate for your pet projects, which benefit not the people, but churches, corporations, and rich folks.

For, example:

"We must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy."

"On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market."

"We must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options."

"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools."

"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas."

"We must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology."

"We must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."

"We must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries."

"We must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says."

"We must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need."

"The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Gouverneur Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."

"By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong."

In each of these instances Mr. Bush you have used our desire for democracy and control of the government and our lives against us. You promise us the power that you do not intend to deliver.

We find your talk of trusting the people hypocrisy, Mr. Bush.

M.O.W. would like to share with our fellow Founder-stalkers what we feel a real president who wants to empower the people sounds like.

Watch this darlings:

We are pleased to announce that M.O.W. officially endorses Illinois Senator Barack Obama for President. We are convinced by his message of hope and common sense and we expect great things from him. We believe--and we hope that we are correct--that Mr. Obama is not a hypocrite like Mr. Bush and that he truly does desire to empower the people to control the government.

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalist Edition

M.O.W. attended a lovely ball last night filled with lovely people and even lovelier conversation. Despite all of this loveliness, M.O.W. found herself challenged in a very un-lovely way by one of her beloved fellow ballers. For, M.O.W. had (correctly) identified herself as an Anti-federalist, upon which she found herself accused of not meaning what she meant. She was informed that she could not possibly be an Anti-federalist because, as our challenger believed, she would have supported the fact that the federal government intruded upon state jurisdictions to end slavery. Ahem.

M.O.W. graciously let these challenges pass by her by without much notice--best not to ruin a lovely evening, she believed--but she knew that it would be necessary to have another Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction. Clearly our challenger had confused States Rights' with Anti-federalism, which of course, are not the same thing at all.

Before we get the to real issue, M.O.W. feels compelled to notice that (quite obviously) the federal government did not end slavery. As we all know, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the North, whose states had already ended slavery prior to any act of the federal government. Rather, the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the states that were then in rebellion, over which the federal government had no authority. Therefore, no slave was emancipated by the Emancipation Proclamation. Our challenger was thus misinformed on more than the differences between Anti-federalism and States' Rights.

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalist Edition

Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalism is the same as States' Rights.

Verdict: Fiction

Quite simply, Anti-federalists were those who opposed the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the new consolidated national government between 1786 and 1789. As we know, those whom were called Anti-federalists (most famously George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, George Clinton, etc.) were in actuality federalists, for it was they who desired to keep the federal relationship between the states and to maintain a confederation rather than introduce a consolidated national government that they feared would be too unwieldy for the people to control. Thus, at the most basic level, the Anti-federalists were those Americans who feared a centralized and uncontrollable national power and who believed that liberty could best be preserved by smaller governments, closer to the people. M.O.W. was indeed an Anti-federalist, she even penned an important essay, Observations on the New Constitution under the pseudonym "Columbian Patriot." Despite the fact that many at the time--and even some respected historians later--would attribute her very smart 22 page pamphlet to Gerrymander, M.O.W. was its author and a decided Anti-federalist, which would embarrass her very Federalist nephew Harrison Gray Otis for years to come.

Those whom we think of as advocates of States' Rights doctrines turn not to Anti-federalists of 1786-1789 for their arguments, but rather justify their arguments by appealing to the logic of the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Funny thing about those Resolutions is that they were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, one of whom was a lukewarm supporter of the 1787 constitution and the other of whom was the author of the constitution itself! Thus, in no way were the "Heroes of '98" the Anti-federalists of 1786-1789, nor would later States' Rights advocates be those who desired a truly federal government. The "Principles of '98" would return as awkward justification for the 1815 Federalist Hartford Convention and would be used more stridently by South Carolina to support their position in the Nullification Controversy of 1830. Whether or not John C. Calhoun and company were justified in their use of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to make their case is another matter all together, but is certainly debatable.

Thus, fellow Founder-stalkers, M.O.W. was, and continues to be, an Anti-federalist, which we now understand is not the same as being an advocate for States' Rights. She is an Anti-federalist because she believes--with Montesquieu--that a large republic is a contradiction. A government based upon the will of the people must be small enough for the people to control, otherwise it is not a republic, but an oligarchy. M.O.W. believes that the fearful predictions of the Anti-federalists of 1786-1789 have obtained in America and thus, she has no trouble justifying her Anti-federalism. Furthermore, she believes that if it were not for the introduction of the new consolidated government in 1789 with its compromises over slavery, it is very likely that slavery would have ended on its own, and much more quickly than it actually did.

M.O.W. finds the States' Rights folks a tad confused, but that is a topic for another day.

You Talkin' to Me?

M.O.W. finds this report from the November 13, 1798 Gazette of the United States comical:

"THE jacobins have taken up the trick of late, which they have borrowed from their friends, the French, of employing ladies in their wicked maneuvers...The amiable daughters of America will lose greatly by mingling in the stormy elements of politics...This ill-chosen business, if you pursue it, will spoil your beauty, as well as mar your happiness; it will plant your bosoms with thorns, and deform your lovely faces with wrinkles before their proper time. Be warned; retreat, before it it too late."

A Friend to the Fair

(Quoted from: American Aurora, Richard N. Rosenfeld, 538)

M.O.W. admits that she would not like her lovely face deformed by wrinkles before her time, nor would she like thorns in her bosom. Perhaps you are right GUS, perhaps we ladies should leave the politic-ing to the men. You all seem to be doing a fine job ruining, I mean running, the nation.

Why are you trying to annoy us, GUS?