Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister

I have long been a fan of British comedy, from Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, through Spitting Image, Drop the Dead Donkey and The Office.  But my favorite Britcom of all time would have to be Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister, two comedy series sharing the same cast of characters.  YM/YPM is a treasure because it is not only funny, it is also educational.

I'm only half joking when I say that watching every episode of these series (38 in all) will give you a better understanding of government than a four-year degree in political science from any of our undergraduate institutions.  This is so because, even though the relationship between politicians and career civil servants, which is the main dynamic driving the plot lines, is different in the United Kingdom and the United States, there are certain tendencies common to people everywhere that manifest themselves in unique ways once those people acquire political power.

YM/YPM follows the ministerial career of the Rt. Hon. James Hacker, MP, a moderate, well-meaning politician of indeterminate party who finds himself appointed to a cabinet ministry when his party regains the majority after years in the political wilderness.  He is appointed to helm the fictitious Ministry of Administrative Affairs.  This rather superfluous-sounding department with its amorphous brief is a plot device that allows the writers to involve the main characters in stories arising out of the whole range of government activity.  Whether the issue of the day is foreign relations, trade, city planning, government secrecy and surveillance, transportation, the arts or sports, the Ministry of Administrative Affairs seems to have its hand in it.

As I said before, the stories in these series arise out of the relationship between the British Civil Service, consisting of non-partisan career bureaucrats, and ministers, Members of Parliament who are appointed by the Prime Minister to head the various cabinet departments.  Although the minister is nominally in charge of the department, and in fact is held responsible for its actions, real day-to-day control is held by the Permanent Secretary, a senior civil servant.  Because the Permanent Secretary has spent his career rising through the ranks in his department, his knowledge and expertise far exceed that of the minister.  This puts the political leadership at a severe disadvantage if it wants to implement policies that are opposed by the permanent bureaucracy.

All We Gotta Do

Yesterday afternoon President Obama held a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit in Chicago. Someone on The Five noted that he spent six minutes describing the problems in Afghanistan without offering a solution or a strategy. That reminded me of this classic bit:



Constitutional Restoration

When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, all the people assembled as one man in the square before the Water Gate.  They told Ezra the scribe to bring out the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded for Israel.So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand.  He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand.  And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law. . . .

 Ezra opened the book.  All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people lifted their hands and responded, "Amen! Amen!"  Then they bowed down and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.  Neh. 7:73b - 8:3, 8:5, 6 (NIV)

The people of Judah had fallen away from following God and they had suffered the judgment of being conquered and carried into exile in Babylon.  In time the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians and a series of Persian Emperors allowed groups of Jews to return to Israel and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem.

One of the observances that had been neglected for a long time was the command that the Book of the Law be read to all the people assembled every seventh year during the Feast of Sukkot (Deut. 31: 10-13).  In 444 B.C. the people decided to remedy this breach.  They called on Ezra, who had led a group of returnees from Babylon fourteen years earlier, to bring out the Book of the Law and read it aloud to the whole assembly.  As the people heard the Law read they repented of their sins and resolved to follow God's commands.

Why am I telling this story?  Because we Americans have neglected our Constitution in much the same way that Judah neglected the Law of God.  And I think what we need as a nation is to rediscover the Constitution and decide whether we will follow it or junk it.  Whatever we do we should at least be honest with ourselves.

Every two years we elect a bunch of politicians to federal office and, almost without exception, they all perjure themselves as their first official act when they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Most of them go through their terms of office never giving a thought as to whether their actions are permitted by law to which they pledged fidelity and from which they derive their authority.

On Democracy

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent article in National Review Online this weekend about democracy in the Arab world.  McCarthy contrasts the optimism surrounding last year's "Arab Spring" with the reality taking shape in the newly democratic Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining political power while Shiite and Christian minorities are subject to increasing discrimination and oppression.  The fact that so many people are surprised by this development shows how little we understand democracy compared with the Founding Fathers.

The founders were very suspicious of democracy.  We all learn this at some point in social studies class but I don't think we internalize it or even understand it.  This is partly because the definition of democracy in the popular mind has changed over the centuries.

When the founders criticized democracy, they had in mind the ancient Greek model in which every citizen took a direct role in governing the affairs of the city state.  James Madison summarized the weaknesses of democracy in Federalist No. 10 thusly:

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

 Benjamin Franklin put it more succinctly:  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."  Or as Tommy Lee Jones put it in Men in Black: "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Craig Ferguson

Craig Ferguson is one of the funniest and most talented personalities in late night television.  Although his humor often veers towards the crude he is still a joy to watch for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Ferguson has the simple patriotism of an immigrant.  He became a naturalized American citizen in 2008 and he frequently refers to the event with obvious pride.  Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" political cartoon is tatooed on his right forearm.  From 2007 to 2010 he hosted the Boston Pops Fourth of July concert and fireworks show.  But what I especially like is that he opens every show with the line "It's a great day for America," regardless of what is actually happening in the news.  It's an expression of indomitable optimism.

Secondly, his comedy is inventive and absurd.  He does a few impressions well, notably Michael Caine, Sean Connery and Prince Charles.  But his chief talents lie in always doing the unexpected and in making the hackneyed fresh.  Even his recurring gags never seem to get old.  His sidekicks include an effeminate robot skeleton named Geoffrey Peterson (who has his own twitter account) and a pantomime horse named Secretariat who makes an appearance in most every show, running out on stage and then off again while Craig and the studio audience dance to the horse's theme music.  Every show begins with a cold opening that might feature Craig talking to camera, subjecting audience members to a mock interrogation or a musical number involving puppets like this one.

But Ferguson's chief asset is that he doesn't take sides or play favorites when it comes to political humor.  He will make fun of any politician regardless of party or ideology.  In this respect he contrasts sharply with his boss, David Letterman.  Letterman's production company, Worldwide Pants, owns Ferguson's show.  Ferguson is the comedian Letterman used to be, taking no prisoners and respecting no persons.  Letterman, like many left-wing comedians, has a blind spot when it comes to left-wing politicians, particularly President Obama.  Ferguson is under no such handicap.

Sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

Jeopardy is broadcasting its "Power Players Tournament" this week and next featuring fifteen Washington, DC movers and shakers.  The contestant list skews heavily to the left with Dana Perino being the closest thing to a conservative in the whole lineup.  The first round of the tournament aired last night and it was a real treat mainly due to the presence of Chris Matthews.

Matthews is arguably the smuggest personality in cable news.  Last night he faced off against Lizzie O'Leary of CNN and Robert Gibbs, Pres. Obama's former press secretary whose chief accomplishment was making Scott McClellan look competent.  Matthews came in last with a disappointing total of $2,300.

Newsbusters, which could probably devote an entire web site to Matthews' antics, put together a compilation of his lowlights from last night's show and, for the icing on the cake, recounted four instances where Matthews disparaged Sarah Palin's intelligence, suggesting that she would perform poorly on Jeopardy.

For the record, Chris Matthews got 13 correct responses and 4 incorrect, not including final jeopardy.  Lizzie O'Leary got 17 correct and 2 incorrect and Robert Gibbs got 16 correct and 1 incorrect.  All three got the final jeopardy response wrong.

Tune in tonight to watch The Five's Dana Perino square off against Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and CNBC's David Faber.

Rosy Scenarios

Yesterday I noted that politicians have a habit of employing overly optimistic assumptions about the growth of the economy in order to assert that their budget plans would bring deficit spending under control.  Today Nash Keune has an article over at National Review Online examining this phenomenon in some depth.

Diane Feinstein has lost her capacity for shame.

Perhaps that's putting it too strongly but I saw Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) interviewed on Fox News Sunday this morning and I was struck by her answer to a question from Shannon Bream (sitting in for Chris Wallace) about the Senate's failure to pass a budget for the past 1,130 days:

Well, we in essence have a budget. The numbers are solid. I'm an appropriator and my appropriation subcommittee which is energy and water gets an allocation based on that law that we passed, the budget law. So, it's passed and it's functioning.

So, there is no annual budget and that is true in that sense. But the allocations have gone out. My bill has just passed out of committee. I think there are four Senate appropriation bills that are now out of the committee awaiting for action.

So, nothing has stopped. The government is moving.

What the senator is saying is that because the Congress has adopted certain measures such as continuing resolutions and "emergency appropriations" that enable it to continue on a fiscal autopilot, all is well.  Her subcommittee gets its allocation, the "allocations have gone out," "nothing has stopped," "[t]he government is moving."  Notice the heavy use of the passive voice, an apt illustration of the Congress' passive attitude towards its fiduciary obligations.

There seems to be no recognition that members of Congress have a responsibility to govern.  To govern is to choose.  But choosing necessarily involves provoking opposition.  The modern politician is concerned mainly with prolonging his own career in office so he is averse to taking any position that might offend an important constituency.

In the current situation, Congress cannot afford to coast on autopilot.  The United States have incurred unsustainable debt and there appears to be no serious effort to control the accumulation of further debt.  Even when a plan is touted as addressing the deficit problem, it is usually based on economic assumptions that appear unreasonably rosy based on recent performance.

Of course, as with most things in government, we have only ourselves to blame.  When any half-serious attempt is made at controlling spending, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget proposal, it is instantly demonized by the Democrats and the NFM (Non-Fox Media) (HT Ann Coulter) follow right along in denouncing it as a medieval scheme to kill off the undesirables.  A substantial portion of the American public will accept this characterization uncritically, repeating bumper sticker slogans as if they were intelligent arguments.

If the United States are to avoid going down the route pioneered by Greece, Americans will have to begin acting like adults and electing politicians who will treat them like adults.

Why Backsplice

This is my first stab at blogging.  I've been opinionated for as long as I can  remember.  I love a good argument and I frequently contribute to other blogs through commenting.  Once I got a post published on Anchor Rising under the "Engaged Citizen" byline but, either through fear, procrastination or some other character defect I've been loath to put my own writing on the web on a regular basis.  Lately I've been trying to change a number of things about me so I figure it's about time for this.

My first choice for the title of this blog was "Seasmoke."  Sea smoke is a meterological phenomenon usually seen in colder climates consisting of a layer of mist no deeper than one or two feet resting on the surface of some body of water.  I first saw sea smoke while stationed aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Reliance, home ported in New Castle, NH.  While traveling to and from the ship I would see the mist covering the ponds and streams along the roads of Maine and New Hampshire.  I later adopted the term as my CB handle because it reminded me of one of the Coast Guard's nicknames - "The Smokies of the Sea."  Unfortunately, when it came time to name my blog, someone had already taken the name.

So I cast about for another image, preferably from my Coast Guard days, that would hold some significance and I came up with "Back Splice."  A back splice is a splice put in the end of a length of rope to prevent it from unraveling.  Depending on how the splice is made, it can also prevent the end of the rope from running through a block.  Essentially, a back splice stops a situation from deteriorating.

I believe that our country is deteriorating economically, politically and socially so the back splice is a good illustration of the need I see for something to prevent us from losing the blessings we inherited as Americans.

I don't know if anyone will actually read this but, if nothing else, this will be a good exercise to develop my writing and rhetoric skills.  If someone should view this site, know that I welcome comments.  I especially welcome arguments.  If you choose to comment please observe simple courtesy.  Stick to the point.  I don't like ad hominem arguments and I don't like non sequiturs and irrelevancies.