Flourishing in the Marketplace of Dullards

Why did I include this video? You'll see.

"Dullard" was my mother's favorite word.

This is understandable, given that she was from Mississippi, and that is not a state full of brilliant minds (though the few it produces seem to us to stand out mainly from our astonishment that anything shiny could be found in that sad sack of coals).*

*No, I am not talking about black people, you hopeless racetards. Black people had brains enough to survive or move to Chicago (where the weather and the hate were colder).

The governor of the Magnolia state, a bulbous turnip named Haley Barbour, has recently displayed what passes for brilliance in Mississippi, as he rightly determined it would be unseemly for the current de facto president of the occupied Confederate States of America, to run for president of the enemy country, and against somebody who, not so long ago, Barbour would have thought had to come to the back door to get permission to shit.

Barbour, should he have run for big cheese of the USA, would have looked to most people like a complete and utter dullard, as well as a racist of course.

And that brings me to the discussion of today's prima dulla—David Brooks.

Brooks is one of those creatures that liberals are supposed to respect. He is a conservative who can contemplatively savor the opinions of his enemies, before reasonably pointing out, using way more words than his less reasonable colleagues on the right, that the liberal opinions are crap.

Brooks is SO reasonable, it is alleged, he even voted for Barack Obama, and continues to defend that choice, especially when Obama does something truly great and popular, like order the assassination of America's favorite terrorist.

But Brooks is also, still, a conservative, who defends conservative values, and conservative virtues (yes, they have those, really). He is doing so today in a piece for the New York Times, wherein he explains to us that because most all of us are dullards, we need the brilliance of the rich and hateful to guide us through the succession of Herculean pillars that life is all about. Most especially, Brooks declares, we should value the fact that our republic was made by (rich lawyers and landowners) to protect us all from each other.

Of course, that isn't quite it, is it? I mean, the republican form of government, the checks and balances, were really put in place to protect the rich lawyers and landowners, the class of educated and entitled elites, from everybody else. If "the people", who are endlessly and blithely moody and susceptible to being bought off, make a bad decision, the "checks" are in place to moderate the downside for the well-to-do folks.

Indeed, let us be specific: the checks and balances are in place to protect the ruling class from those of its own members who might be led to whipping up the democratic or revolutionary passions of the masses to overthrow some essential privilege of the masters. The "balance" of government is a barrier against the distrust the masters had in the lack of nobility residing in the nobility.

So obviously insidious was this setup, that some of the more rebellious delegates to the Constitutional Convention demanded there be a Bill of Rights, to insure certain key liberties were salvaged from governmental abuse, for ALL citizens (well, in principle anyway), and not merely the masters who made the rules. It is well to note that this move to attach an enumerated list of rights, was held in considerable contempt by many of the lawyers, who claimed, as a subtle counter, that if you listed a small number of chief freedoms, the Congress would then use them as a way of denying that any others existed.

Of course, what has happened is that not only have the general freedoms been assailed and devalued as threats to the monstrous state, but the list on the Bill of particulars has been diminished as well, to the point where many Americans consider them subversive and due a regulatory diminishment or abolition.

Anyway, Brooks is arguing for the virtues of republic versus the chaos of democracy. He claims that was how our founders, our rich white men, understood things, and set things up. Of course they also set things up to deny freedom to most of the people in the country—and we have been engaged in a conflict to correct that huge deficiency in virtue and courage ever since.

The meager successes in obtaining corrections, i.e. obtaining greater rights for all, are viewed by conservatives, even the allegedly moderate ones like Brooks, as a dangerous development.

He says: "The democratic triumph has created a nation that runs up huge debt and is increasingly incapable of finding a balance between competing interests."

Really, it has nothing to do with the Republican campaign of 40 years to run up huge debts by cutting taxes to an absurd degree, irresponsibly doing so while expanding government spending. It has nothing to do with the Republican encouragement, via this example, for private Americans to obtain as much credit and debt as possible to the point so many of them have gone Icelandically down the tubes financially. It has nothing to do with the Republican devotion to cultivating the most dangerous, racist, divisions amongst the people of the USA, to wreck any "balance between competing interests" as a means of holding onto power.

Nope, it's just because that nasty old democracy stuff got out of hand. If only you had stayed British, with a nation who understood colonial management, and the rights of kings and nobles, none of this would have happened to you.

I could close by saying David Brooks is a dullard, one who is flourishing in the marketplace of dullards, but you know, if you have to be told that, especially after reading him, it would be a waste of words. Also, the sky is blue and the water radioactive—yes, it should be that level of self-evident.