Target Rich Environment: Do you believe in the government?

Forty-five years ago I read a campaign speech by Lyndon Johnson in which he called upon the voters to have “faith” in their government. That is the point at which my dislike for the man turned into loathing.

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He was thinking then of past history. History since then has provided continuous support for that axiom.

Of course I believe in government. I believe it is made up of four parts: politicians, civil servants, judges, and a mass of laws, rules, regulations, and procedures. And the greatest of these is the fourth.

How many Americans ‘believe’ in politicians? Not many, not now, not ever. In recent years public approval of Congress has sometimes fallen to 14 percent and has rarely risen above 40 percent. Nothing unusual or novel about this. American’s were not scandalized by Mark Twain’s jibe – “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Nor were they shocked to hear Will Rogers’ say “This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.”

Those who manage to shinny up the greasy pole of politics to the presidency almost never fall so low in public esteem as the crowd of congressmammals. Yet liberals, who profess profound devotion to government have, in my lifetime, regarded most occupants of the White House with disdain, if not alarm.

Most of us have come to view Harry Truman with respect, but when he left office his approval ratings were abysmal.

Eisenhower was regarded as an ineffective bumbler. “An Eisenhower doll – you wind it up and it doesn’t do anything for eight years.” “The president will not be holding a press conference today. He was unable to read his position papers. His lips are chapped.” “Pah, Eisenhower isn’t a communist. He’s a golfer.”

Johnson’s popularity fell so low as a result of the Vietnamese War that he did not seek re-election. The McGovernites who now dominate the Democratic Party hated him. Remember “Hey, Hey, LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?”

Tricky Dick Nixon was held to be a nefarious limb of Satan and escaped office a hop and skip ahead of impeachment.

Jerry Ford was regarded as an ineffective bumbler.

Jimmy Carter? A president Republicans love to talk about and Democrats scarcely remember.

Ronald Reagan? “An amiable dunce” devoid of real ideas or substance.

Bush I was cast off after a single term, and good riddance.

Bush II? “Chimpy.” “Bellicose, moralistic cowboy.” “Bush lied and thousands died.” Servant of Big Oil. War criminal.

Add this all up and Billy Clinton seems to be the only basis left for belief and faith in the presidency. Seems like a weak and wobbly pedestal on which to elevate the office.

In general it must be acknowledged that “politician” is not a name that politicians ever like to claim for themselves. Americans have never admired that profession as such and the dislike is deeply rooted in history. Here’s a common opinion dating from 1606:

“Get thee glass eyes;
And like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the thing thou dost not.”
—-Shakespeare, King Lear

The Civil Service has two parts. Those who deliver actual services – firemen, policemen, combat soldiers, snow plow operators, etc. – tend to be held in high esteem. Bureaucrats, who deal in paper and wield the ultimate power, are not much admired. From the far Left we can cite the opinion of Mary McCarthy “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.” From the liberals we can cite Eugene McCarthy: “The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency.” Or Albert Einstein “Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work” No need to quote conservatives on the subject. Our views are well known.

As for loving a mass of laws, rules, regulations, and procedures. Is this even possible? If so it’s a perversion more bizarre than anything recorded in the works of Havelock Ellis, the Marquis de Sade, or Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.

That leaves us with the Judges, the least Democratic of all the components of government. They tend to be held in higher regard, but even there doubts begin to grow about their objectivity, integrity, and even common sense. And if you believe in the opinions of some, you must inevitably scorn the opinions of others.

For example, we can agree with the US Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of an appeal to spare Fernando Belmontes from the death penalty on the grounds that his lawyer failed to present “mitigating evidence” about his childhood. They reason that “It is hard to imagine . . . additional facts about Belmontes’ difficult childhood outweighing the facts of McConnell’s murder We agree with the state court’s characterization of the murder” as one of ” ‘extraordinary brutality’ and simply cannot comprehend the assertion by the Court of Appeals that this case did not involve ‘needless suffering.’ ”

You see Belmontes broke into McConnell’s home and struck her in the head 15 or 20 times with a steel barbell, crushing her skull, in order to steal a $100 stereo to buy beer and drugs.

Our problem is that the judges of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seem to be imbeciles. This is the third time that the USSC has overturned their rejection of the death penalty in this case. Can those over-turned judges really believe that bashing Mrs. McConnell’s head in was necessary and not “needless?”

In conclusion, the question before us is this: What does is a man actually believing in when he says he “believes” in government? It appears to be some kind of mystical aura that engages their faith.