Least Qualified, or Least Principled?

Adapted from a speech that I gave at the Bellingham Tea Party ice cream social, on Friday, August 6, 2010.

How many readers know what the word kakistocracy means? Here it is again: kakistocracy n., pl. -cies. Government by the least qualified or least principled citizens. [Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; -cracy, government, regime]

The unqualified don't know the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. They don’t know what they're doing, and they don't know what they're not supposed to be doing. They're simply wielding power over us, without direction or constraint. They might mean well, but they're unauthorized.

George Bush said "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." He attempted to justify government usurpation of our Constitutional rights. He showed that he didn't know what he's not supposed to do -- very disappointing.

C.S. Lewis said "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

But as bad as it is to have unqualified leaders -- who know not what they do -- unprincipled leaders are worse. Much worse.

Unprincipled leaders know the terms and conditions in the Constitution; they simply disagree with them. They see the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda, so they employ Machiavellian tactics to subvert the official specification for the United States of America. They work tirelessly to misrepresent the founding principles in schools, universities and the media.

The Constitution guarantees equal justice for all, and protects your life, liberty and prosperity. Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.

Who's unprincipled? The usurper-in-chief and his minions and henchmen, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, and a long list of unelected czars. About half of the Supreme Court who proclaimed -- in their confirmation hearings -- that they do not believe that the Constitution means what it says, or says what it means. They believe the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted as needed to achieve "social justice" instead of "equal justice".

But Bush is gone. Obama is here, and he's far more dangerous, in my opinion. We need to be aware of the danger, while simultaneously understanding Constitutional principles. The Obama presidency might be an interesting turning point, if we take away the right lessons. If McCain had won, I think we would have continued sleepwalking through history, instead of waking up. McCain and the others would have continued to usurp our liberties and mindlessly erode our constitution. Barack Obama's regime, on the other hand, is conducting a full frontal assault, with the pedal to the metal. And people are freaking out. Still, he'll do a lot of damage even after he's done. He's already appointed two justices who are the most radical and anti-Constitutional in our history. They'll be there for at least two generations, and they'll do untold damage. Bush's appointments won't do that.

If we hope to preserve our republic, we must elect principled statesmen who understand the founding documents. Who know the Constitution, chapter and verse, and who can explain where in the Federalist Papers, the supporting arguments can be found. This country has no room for kakistocrats of either kind.