As IF Times

There’s an old saw that says “people get the government that they deserve”. The reason that old saws reflect wisdoms is that they are proven to be correct again and again through time. This is to say that while times change, people and the predictability of human nature does not.  In our current modern era, it’s conspicuously evident that a large contingent of heretofore ‘free and democratic’ states are experiencing situations which are anything but free and democratic.

If you observe the nations where the populace is most strongly at odds with government policies, it happens to be in the nations which were once most revered for their attitudes towards personal rights and freedoms. This includes France, The United Kingdom and Canada which have all devolved into states which oddly resemble those totalitarian regimes that they notionally abhor.  They resemble Orwellian states where freedoms are vaunted but not really allowed.

One may argue that all of these governments were democratically elected and thus, must represent the collective will of their people. This would be a specious argument since in the majority of cases, the selection of political parties is usually restricted to either a bad choice, or a worse one. As discussed in a previous commentary, the choice of political parties is really created by a very small contingent of political operatives.  Thus, the choices are for the people to be democratically oppressed by villain party A or by incompetent party B.

Recently in Canada for example, there were at least 2 representatives of the opposition party not in power who crossed the floor to side with the party that is presently in power.  This was probably not how the democratic process was designed to work.  Thus, if you had cast your vote to have someone represent your views, you’re out of luck.  Welcome to the Uniparty. We shall see if this finally engenders real outrage in a docile Canadian public.

But how do politicians push policies that are so out of sync with the wishes of their constituents?  We can all guess of course.  The usual influence of money and power are probably always at the root, that’s Occam’s Razor.  But no one votes to have their lives oppressed by excessive taxation, by restriction of their movements and speech and by curtailment of their activities.  I’m pretty sure no one votes to have their online activities monitored under threat of jail, for removal of long term property rights, for wanton taxation and for cancellation of legal protests.  Unless of course you’re a New Yorker.  Say what you want about their new Mayor Mamdani, but he was at least explicit on what his agenda and platform. He may be misguided, but he is not a liar.  He got the people to believe him.  Thus, the people got what they wanted; or deserved.

In the case of the other nations mentioned above, it’s pretty certain that no one ran on the platforms that they’re trying to enforce today. Politicians learn pretty quickly what works and what works is that you pander to soft sensibilities, promise everyone a chicken in every pot and then instead give them an old shoe once elected.  Thus is perpetuated the age-old game of bait and switch.  They promise to rid your home of pests, which sounds good, but then they kill your pets too,

Recently, nations with lesser traditions of ‘democracy’ have moved en masse against their oppressive overlords, with great effect.  We saw this in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru and now recently in Bulgaria. The fact that this hasn’t been replicated in the West is because of their traditions of lawful conduct.  Of course, the goalposts of ‘lawful conduct’ are moved all the time by Western governments, thus it may be just a matter of time.

The idea of democracy was that people in given society were to be given a voice in how the underlying society would be run. Thus, people who had a long term stake in a society would have people represent their views.  Somehow, this model has perversely turned the other way with elected people enacting programs directly at odds with their own constituents. This can be remedied if the populace decides that it must.  As is the case with any task that you hire someone to do, politicians must be made to explicitly state their goals and strategies.  ANY contradiction of these goals MUST be grounds for removal from office, not by the end of the term, but immediately. The people themselves must DEMAND this.  They cannot expect things to just work out.   Otherwise, they really do get the government they deserve.

link  US accused of ‘occupying’ Haiti as troops flood in – Telegraph.

Even in the midst of a great humanitarian operation, there’s still room for politics and political sensitivities.  Alain Joyandet, a French minister in charge of their relief effort,  in a fit of exasperation, accused the American contingent of an occupying operation and not a mercy mission.

While certainly preposterous, given the expeditious and generous response of the Americans compared to any other nation, this shows again how America cannot be the good guy in the eyes of the world.  The eloquent and charming Hugo Chavez expressed these same sentiments a few days ago as well.  France however, notionally an ally, should know better.

From way back in the late 1400’s when Chris Columbus and his gang showed up claiming things for Spain, to the French who started occupation in the early 1600’s to the late 1800’s, Haiti has had a long sordid history of slavery, of confiscation of resources, extinction of much of the native people and almost permanent poverty.  The short time that the U.S. occupied Haiti in the early 1900’s was a blink in time.

It’s widely known as a matter of fact,  that for all the years the European occupiers were there, no one thought to build any roads.  You’d think someone would think of this as they were carting away all the resources.  When the Yanks showed up, they put in the most extensive system of roads the nation had ever had.  Unfortunately, this was by mostly slave labor, but at least there was some attempt to build infrastructure.  So, for 20 some odd years, the Americans were in there, the French for over 200 and someone yelps “l’occupation!” As if.

But Americans are sensitive to this perception, heck the article even says that U.S. Marines are coached to carry their weapons discreetly and in an unthreatening way so as not to arouse historic sensibilities.  Really? Someone with serious wounds, no water and no food is going to complain about a guy with a gun providing security from looters and gangs?  Only cynical pinheads for whom politics is always paramount in their mentality can think this.  For their part, the Americans are acting like parents who have been accused of child beating so often, they go out of their way to be seen to act properly, walking on eggshells instead of just getting the job done.

In any event, why exactly would the Americans be interested in occupying Haiti?  It’s a country in a permanent state of chaos.  At the moment, even more than usual, there is anarchy.  The people are illiterate.  They are poor.  The big bull market in spices has come and gone.  There’s not even a lot of land involved. To step in would be to take ownership of the enormous challenges involved in bringing Haiti to decent modern standards, which means billions and billions of dollars as Carl Sagan used to say.  The only real advantage is to get a closer platform to slingshot spitballs at Hugo.

It would be nice to see France and Spain, two genuine former occupiers send in some real help to rebuild the country.  Send aid and money and maybe croissants, pass on the rhetoric.