Radical Machiavellianism

A current definition of Machiavellianism would be "the ends justify the means."  To call one's opponent Machiavellian is a very common argument in politics today, but who really follows this theory? 

Back during the Bush years, we faced the issue of "torturing" terrorists that were caught on the battlefield.  Ignoring for a second that waterboarding is not torture, the Republicans argued that the actions taken by interrogators were necessary for collecting intel and defending our nation.  Democrats played the card of Machiavellianism, claiming that they (the party of slavery and aborted children) had the moral high ground on this issue.  Republicans were running roughshod over the rights of the terrorists, going to an extreme, all in the name of some obscure concept like national security.  Not only were Republicans evil for causing the war in the first place, but they now were taking whatever means were necessary to reach the desired ends.

In reality, there is always a balance between the ends and the means.  No interrogator could have killed a terrorist during questioning and gotten away with it.  We have strict standards, and these were mostly followed.  But it wasn't the abuses of this system that the Dems attacked.  It was the entire concept that we could do something that supposedly "violated the rights" of terrorists.  In this case, Democrats made sure to throw down their gauntlet on the opposing side of (what they claimed was) Machiavellianism.  According to them, Republicans had no right to do anything within the gray area of morality, even if it might protect innocent Americans later on.

Fast forward a few years.  Democrats have the power, and they HAD the support of many people.  But as time goes on, and the economy goes down, more and more individuals are choosing to turn against those they put into power.  At one point, the Dems had a supermajority in the Senate, a large majority in the house, and a President wanting to take this country to the left of Stalin.  But they fumbled the ball, and now they have only 59 votes in the Senate, with a few Dems even willing to resist a cloture vote that would allow bills like Obamacare to pass.  They were so close!  They had everything they needed, but they couldn't convert seats into action. 

So what do you do if you are a power-hungry Socialist just a few votes shy of the ability to remake the country in your image?  Enter reconciliation.  Now that they can't pass bills through the traditional route, Dems need to find some other way to remake the country without all the hassle of whipping up 60 votes in the Senate.  Normally reconciliation is only used for budget bills, but Obamacare is merely a budget-destroying bill.  Most likely sometime next week, the Dems are going to try to push through Obamacare on a simple majority vote in the Senate, with only 51 votes needed.  This clears the way for Nancy Pelosi to start porking up her caucus members in the House until they submit to voting for the bill.

Why would the Democrats, the generous party of democracy, try to do something as undemocratic as reconciliation?  Well, in case you didn't know, healthcare is important.  During the Obama lecture to the Republicans yesterday, Democrat after Democrat got up and told sorrowful stories from their constituents, ranging from lack of affordable healthcare to lack of non-corpsy dentures.  When Republicans got up, Professor Obama scolded them for bringing useless props into the debate, such as the actual bill from the Senate.  What is the message from this?  Healthcare is just too important.  It is too important to worry about the bills, or what is in them, or how we will pay for them, or what they will do to liberty.  It is too important to think.  It is too important to wait.  We have to set aside our bickering, our partisonship, and our sense of logic and reason so we can come together to get something done. 

But don't the American people say they are against Obamacare?  Well remember, it is just too important.  It is too important to worry about the will of the people.  It is too important to worry about reelection.  It is too important to care about how the bill will actually impact constituents.  We need to act now. In the end, the Democrats' plan goes on this principle: the government running healthcare is more important than anything else, and it needs to get done, no matter what it takes. 

The supposed Bush-era "Machiavellianism" had the ends of protecting the nation and the means of using standard procedures to question enemy combatants.  But the Dem version is a bit different.  Basically, they are saying the ends (socialized medicine) justifies the means (trashing democracy, ignoring constituents, and ruining the country).  While Dems openly bashed the "cowboy" methods of Bush and the Republicans, they are now openly pursuing what they once condemned, except this time, the goal is not the protection of America but the remaking of America in the image of Obama and Eastern Europe.  If they truly were against Machiavellianism years ago, they should still be today and they should not be ignoring their constituents, Senate rules, and the Constitution in their quest to make everyone equally miserable.