EMPIRICALLY SPEAKING, GRUBER HAS A POINT, AMERICANS ARE STUPID
by Andy Weddington
Sunday, 16 November 2014
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein
Jonathan Gruber, an economist and among the chief designers of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), said Americans are stupid.
Mr. Gruber said it multiple times over a handful of years, and was recorded as many times. That is empirical evidence. His audiences laughed - at his condescending putdown, and at stupid Americans (their brethren).
Now, the question: "Did Mr. Gruber make a slanderous or factual statement?"
No argument that Mr. Gruber's comment was insulting. Indeed. But an insulting comment is not necessarily slanderous nor false.
Fact is, empirical evidence supports Mr. Gruber's accusation.
Look no further than the election of Barack Obama - twice.
Yes, President Obama and his policies were rebuked by the citizenry a couple of weeks ago. But that (rebuke) does not necessarily negate nor redeem American stupidity. Invalidating stupidity will take a whole lot more than that.
A few nights ago on The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel), Representative Trey Gowdy (R, SC) said, "Have you met Joe Biden?"
Mr. Gowdy's comment was in reply to Mr. O'Reilly's query as to whether or not the House of Representatives would impeach President Obama if he usurped our Constitution?
Mr. Gowdy's body language and tone - of subtle gentlemanly sarcasm - clear: No.
Mr. Gowdy's position is shared by many pols and pundits. But their position is based not on what's good for America but what is good for the Republican party in 2016 (Presidential election).
But is that not yet another statement that Americans are stupid? That Americans cannot think for themselves as to right and wrong?
That is, if President Obama usurps our Constitution (e.g., by exercising Executive Order to dismiss and write immigration law) then he has (deliberately) violated his oath and is subject to impeachment.
A crime is a crime. A high crime is a high crime. And right is right.
At first blush, Mr. Gowdy's comment is funny - witty repartee. But after the chuckles fade and upon serious thought his (et al.) position is disturbing. For if failing to punish (remedy or not) the president then Mr. Gowdy (and his fellow public servants) would, too, be guilty of failing to carry out their oath of office. By default he and they become party to the president's crime and compound the problem.
Tip-toeing around for the skin color of a president who has decided which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore is wrong. So is wrong side-stepping duty to hold the president accountable for not wanting to seat a certain successor. And it is dereliction of duty to not act against a criminal president for the purpose of protecting a party's future political position (over national well-being).
And let's not overlook that morals and ethics are too in play.
Back to Mr. Gowdy's comment.
Vice President Biden is a bumbler. He speaks - without facts, before thinking, and so seems the court jester. Again, empirical evidence, recordings, abounds.
But Mr. Biden, at least to date, has not shown himself to be a lawless sort nor intent on the destruction of our country.
Omitting needless debate, stupid Americans must answer some questions.
For starters...
1) Do we want a president (2 more years) who: a) was soundly rebuked and is in denial; b) has been proven to have lied about (his) healthcare reform, and c) has pledged to wield authority contrary to Constitutional powers?;
2) By not moving to impeach the president (if overstepping powers), is Congress derelict?
3) Would, all things considered, America be better served by President Joe Biden?;
4) Are Americans so stupid as to childishly retaliate against a political party for doing what is right (impeaching the president) by electing someone to the presidency (2016) based solely on gender (or some other superficial variable)?
Mr. Gruber may be right.
Though Americans are sometimes surprisingly clever prove it they must.
So, let's Einstein the scenario - and wait for empirical evidence to determine whether or not Americans have their limits.
In the meantime, Congress, one stupid American offers two words: law; duty.
Post Script
The distinguished political analyst and columnist, Charles Krauthammer, too, is against impeachment for the same (shortsighted) reasons. Disagree, I do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Andy,
Thoroughly enjoy reading your blog. In theory, I generally agree with your insights on the current state of affairs regarding the current leadership. Unilateral action on the immigration issue is clearly the wrong approach and contrary to what I would view as the will of the people, although it is worth noting that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both acted unilaterally on immigration issues. In this post, you have echoed something that is quite commonly said regarding the president, i.e. that the President is acting contrary to the Constitution. For clarification purposes, I think that it would helpful to identify specifically what part of the Constitution that he is violating. Cheers, Bob Moseley
Thanks for comment, Mr. Mosely. I wrote if the President usurps the Constitution (e.g., by ignorning or writing law) he would be violating his oath of office. That differs from your question (wh/ is outside the scope of what I wrote).
Oops, apologies for misspell, Mr. Moseley. And thanks for tuning in.
Oops, apologies for misspell, Mr. Moseley. And thanks for tuning in.
Andy, thanks for the response and clarification. The whole issue has spurred me to get some further education on the concept of Executive Orders and the associated do's and don'ts.
As a reminder and as posted for the readership, comment submitted under the veil of anonymity - that is, lack of courage - is not published.
Post a Comment