FAUCI FAVOR
By now, we've all witnessed the Sen. Rand Paul/ Anthony Fauci senate hearing and his 111 times invoking the 5th Amendment. What a farce.
What struck me more than anything was the Democrat senator solidarity to sing his praises. In light of the diary smugness, the obvious lies, the egregious edicts counter to all observable information, the Democrats held firm and singing his praises. Why?
I'm going to connect a dot lots of folks won't, so hang in there. In light of such scathing mis, mal, and nonfeasance, why would the Democrats line up this arm-in-arm to defend the indefensible?
The answer lies in philosophy. And it's the same issue crippling the effectiveness and internal turmoil in MAHA. In general, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans lies in the role of government. Democrats think government is benign, the most honest sector of society, and therefore should intervene in as much of our daily lives as possible.
In general, Republicans think government should not be trusted, nor should it be the default solution to all of society's ills. A more limited government, personal responsibility society is their persona.
As a result, Democrats cannot and will not question bureaucrats. Government agents represent their entire philosophical and political worldview; they cannot afford to impugn agency officials because this calls into question their whole framework of societal governance and operations. If agencies do more harm than good, their entire geo-political structure collapses. Can't afford that.
This inability to even consider Fauci's failings now diminishes the power of MAHA. As more and more MAHA insiders grow frustrated, not least with RFK Jr.'s agreement with President Trump's executive order elevating glyphosate to a place of national security, I see commonalities. Again, in general, the leaders of the MAHA movement came out of the Democratic party.
Indeed, that's why many believe Trump's re-election occurred because of RFK's hook-up rather than Kamala Harris' failings. Disenchanted with lies and corruption in the Democrat Biden administration, these MAHA leaders did what good Democrats are never supposed to do: think honestly for themselves and quit the herd. Most Republicans are the same; group-think and required loyalty occur in every social institution, from churches to sports teams.
RFK Jr. was a lifelong Democrat. All of his intimate leadership group were lifelong Democrats. I could recite the names, and many have become true personal friends. As a libertarian-leaning person, though, I'm constantly troubled by a core mindset within MAHA to enlist government involvement. In strategy sessions, the discussion often goes like this: "now that we have power, instead of spending money there, let's spend it here." It sounds like this: "The bad guys have been putting money in their buckets; now let's put money in our buckets."
I'm screaming: "Who needs buckets? Get rid of the buckets, for crying out loud. Just leave us alone and let us do our thing."
Lest anyone reading this think "doing our thing" is what created the oligarchies plaguing our nation, let me assure you that oligarchies can never exists without government's help. If MAHA could be as aggressive about liberty as it is about a new way to intervene, we'd hear a totally different conversation. But government-love is a hard marriage to break. Fidelity to that foundational faith in government's benevolence binds people together far more powerfully than believing government usually makes a mess of things.
Therein lies the conundrum. How do you most efficaciously create societal change? During the Fauci hearing, we saw Democrat fidelity to a government-knows-best creed. The MAHA movement, as wonderful as it is, now wrestles with that core creed among its leaders. I'm doing all I can to shake it out of them, with good cheer and deep appreciation.
On a scale of 1-10, 1 being failure and 10 being successful, based on your experiences, where would you rate government's average helpfulness?
