Democracy or Kleptocracy?

Attached is what I suspect is my final effort at this essay. If you choose to share it, please include the disclaimer on the first page.

In sincerest patriotism,


Arthur L. McGinley, Ph.D.
Retired Marine Corps Major, and currently a college professor.

An administrative system which ignores ethics, culture, and morality cannot survive as a dominant political organism. --Manley P. Hall "America's Assignment with Destiny" 1951

Disclaimer:

This article results from a synthesis of my recent reading, my study of American Politics and international relations of more than 30 years and my own deep concern for the status of my nation in the world community and its security.

Some of what you read may sound familiar to some of you since I am not averse to paraphrasing scholars more erudite than myself. My difficulty is that I read so much and listen to so many points of view that I cannot begin to cite sources for what is essentially a spur of the moment essay. If you recognize something you have written or said please feel flattered that I remembered it and considered it worthy of inclusion in the analysis rather than being offended that I failed to cite the source. I freely acknowledge the contributions made by many scholars to our political discourse and thank everyone who has taught me through their contributions to the discipline.

Arthur L. McGinley, PhD
Major of US Marines Retired

Democracy or Kleptocracy?

Major Arthur L. McGinley, PhD
US Marine Corps Retired

The political system of the United States has begun to swing from that of a representative democracy to that of a kleptocracy. In fact, there has been a distinct departure from the concept of performing public service to the creation of a political class who envision themselves the natural rulers of the people and who are intent on treating their elected offices as family property as if we are reinstituting feudalism. How else can one explain the efforts of this new political class to deny states the right to enforce immigration laws; to deny private citizens the means for self-defense from both tyrannical government and from the criminal class; to fail to enforce voter intimidation laws; to prosecute private citizens for revealing illegal activities of groups like ACORN; and to surround themselves with organizations like SEIU and other elements of the political thugocracy? Why else would they set out to weaken America by decimating the military power of the nation in order to finance their idealistic social programs? As they enrich themselves at the public trough through budgetary earmarks directed to relatives or legislation favoring one section of the country or one social group over another, the nation sinks deeper into the morass of rule by the self-defined political class instead of the rule of law.

Before proceeding further, the terms democracy and kleptocracy must be defined. Coming from the Greek, democracy is roughly translated as Demos meaning people and Kratis meaning “rule by” (in English the suffix -cracy) and is interpreted to mean the “rule by the people” (some would translate “demos” as mob making the word mean “rule by the mob”). Kleptocracy translated breaks down as “klepto” meaning thief or criminal, and –cracy meaning “rule by.” So a kleptocracy is rule by criminals or thieves. The former Soviet Union has been called a kleptocracy in international relations literature because of the influence of criminal elements there. As this essay proceeds, it will be shown that this is the direction in which the government of the United States has headed.

Border Enforcement

Beginning with the assertion that the political class does not desire to enforce border sovereignty, the influence exerted on elected officials by illegal aliens is brought into the forefront. The failure by U.S. federal authorities to enforce immigration law borders on treason. The desire to retain public office has become so great among certain elected officials that they are willing to permit large numbers of people to violate the sovereignty of the nation in hopes of gaining their vote and thus retaining their offices with the inherent power and prestige. At one time, elected officials were considered to be rendering public service by serving briefly in elected office. It was accepted that they had established themselves in a profession and were taking time out from that profession to serve the nation for a time. Most elected officials served one or two terms and then returned to private life. It has been only recently that politics has become a profession. Because holding office is the only means of livelihood for these individuals, they will compromise anything, from their personal integrity to the national security, even to the extent of losing it, and the national checkbook to retain their offices. Probably the two best examples of the compromise of the national check book are former Representative Murtha and former Senator Byrd both of who raped the public purse for self-aggrandizement and the enrichment of both themselves and their families.

In 1979, at the graduation ceremonies for Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Eric Sevareid, a long-time CBS News White House correspondent, told the graduating class to keep a close eye on elected officials. He reminded us that most of them come into office “with patches on their elbows and on the seats of their pants and leave as millionaires, and they do it on $39,000 a year.” While not much money, even in those days, the proposition is true nevertheless. Very few, if any, members of Congress leave office less wealthy than they were when they were elected. Even after leaving office most continue to use their connections to increase their personal wealth. This is public service?

The compromise of national security is personified in Congressman Murtha, Senator Reid, Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Durbin, Senator Kerry and President Obama who have made unwarranted accusations against U.S. military personnel, who continuously apologize for imaginary sins committed by the U.S., and who never met an enemy of America that they did not like and/or support. One proof of this assertion is the sanctuary the U.S. government has created in Arizona for illegal border crossers and illicit drug importers in a national park. This sanctuary is a key example of how far government has fallen into the orbit of foreign criminal elements. Why else would officials of the U.S. government create an avenue for entry into the heart of Arizona?

Second Amendment

The original intent of the Second Amendment was to provide the means necessary for the citizenry to defend itself from tyrannical government. Further evidence of the gains made by the kleptocracy is the never-ending battle by elected officials to strip citizens of any means of self-defense. While American elected officials have not gone as far as the British in labeling possession of all of the means of defense a crime, efforts are made daily to strip citizens of the tools they need to defend themselves from the criminal elements in the government. One wonders just how far in the pockets of these criminal elements city and county officials are who fight against Supreme Court rulings in order to assure the safety of criminals in their jurisdictions and who do little or nothing to provide for the security of law-abiding citizens. These elected officials appear to be in league with criminal elements as they make every effort to disarm citizens through legislation contrary to US Supreme Court decisions.

Anyone who believes that politicians like Mayors Bloomberg of New York and Daley of Chicago do not desire to control every aspect of the lives of the residents of their cities has not been paying attention. One only needs to look at the recent ban in San Francisco of non-diet soft drinks, and the ban on sodium in restaurants in New York to see that even the most miniscule of personal choices are considered to be subject to government control. Little by little, bit by bit, individual freedoms are being eroded. The case for the right to keep and bear arms has never been as pertinent as it is today. With the erosion of any semblance of border control, criminal and terrorist elements from throughout the world have easy access to our cities, and thus to our families. Stripped of the means to keep and bear arms, we are defenseless against the criminal elements that have infiltrated our governmental system and defenseless against tyrannical elements in the body of our elected officials. A case in point is the recent overturning of City of New York legislation that forbade more than two consecutive terms by the mayor. Mr. Bloomberg made a case for overturning the law and received the necessary votes to do so. Now he can rule New York as he sees fit for a long as he wants.

Voter Intimidation

It is an astonishing turn of events when the U.S. Department of Justice will not enforce voter intimidation laws. Even worse is their seeming choice to enforce the laws selectively. The Democrat Congress passed legislation that demands that a picture ID be showed to obtain basic medical services under Medicare or Medicaid. The regulation was passed under the guise of preventing identify theft and protecting insurance from being used by someone other than the intended recipient. Yet when a potential voter is asked for a picture ID at a polling place, Democrats and their fellow travelers scream harassment and intimidation. The excuse they use is that minorities are so untrusting of the government that they don’t apply for photo IDs. If this is true, how do they manage to sign up for their cell phone service? Drive a car? Cash or write a check? Or accomplish any one of a number of daily tasks that require a photo ID to complete? Could it be that not being required to show identification restricts the number of times and/or places a person can vote in a single election? Surely this is not the case even though Democrat party operatives have been caught falsifying voter registration documents. A case in point is the recent Presidential election where ACORN registered voters in Illinois with names like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

Fellow Travelers

Recently revelations by undercover reporters have pointed out the lack of integrity of the President’s favorite community organization ACORN. These investigators recorded agents of ACORN assisting the establishment of houses of ill-repute populated by underage illegal aliens. Other antics by ACORN have since come to light. Investigative reporters determined that ACORN was receiving millions of dollars from the U.S. government under several aliases. There are no records of where the money went or for what it was spent, although ACORN is supposed to be a 501c organization with stringent reporting requirements mandated by the IRS. The Congress is complicit in the use of federal money for the purposes of ACORN. Yet we should not be surprised. The management of ACORN is composed primarily of members of minority groups. For some reason, they are given a pass by the IRS on the financial reporting requirements to which others are subject.

ACORN and the SEIU were the prime movers in turning out voters for the current administration and the Democrat Party in the 2008 election. The SEIU was one of the Democrat party’s major contributors as well as a heavy contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. The SEIU and ACORN have committed acts of violence that are well documented, from attacking members at Tea Party rallies, to voter intimidation, to acts of intimidation at corporation headquarters. Their activities are condoned if not directed by members of the current Presidential administration.

National Security

Call them liberals, progressives or left-wing whack jobs, they all hate the military. True to form the current administration has created a commission to determine reductions in U.S. military forces in order to be able to fund the vast array of social programs they propose. The U.S. military is recognized currently as the most powerful in the world. The President is concerned about the fact that many of our potential enemies, and even some of our so-called friends, are afraid of us. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I believe that in international relations, it is far better to be feared than to be liked. We have never learned that valuable lesson. After every conflict in which the United States has participated, the military has been down-sized to a point of bare capability. Invariably, within a period of less than 10 years we have come to regret it. By intentionally down-sizing and eliminating acquisition of new equipment several major problems are created. Probably the most important is the loss of warrior officers. In a climate of peacetime machinations the bureaucrats manage to shove aside the warriors who really know how to fight wars but don’t comprehend bureaucratic politics.

A very wise statesman once said, “If you would have peace, prepare for war.” Failure to prepare for war leads to the appearance of weakness. In the current international climate, any appearance of weakness is an excuse to attack. Our Middle Eastern enemy understands exhibitions of strength, and we must continue to be strong if we are to survive. Sadly, the current kleptocratic administration is intent on making the U.S. weak not only in appearance but as a matter of fact.

Conclusion

To answer the question of whether the U.S. is now a democracy rather than a republic or a kleptocracy, we see in the United States today is a government composed of people who could not support themselves if they were not occupants of elected offices. Being incapable of earning a living any other way they have reverted to thievery. It matters not that the theft may be votes rather than money, it is theft nonetheless. As a result, the U.S. federal government should now be classified a kleptocracy. It has made it unacceptable to call illegal aliens illegal. It acquiesces to criminal activity by minorities over the majority by refusing to prosecute cases of voter intimidation, illegal immigration or the importation of illegal drugs across our borders. It financially supports activist anti-capitalist organizations like ACORN and gives support to unions like SEIU who act as shills and shock troops for the Democrat party. And most importantly, it is willing to abandon the military power that has made us the greatest nation in the world in hopes that our conquerors will be appreciative of their efforts. All this change has become about in the relatively short period of two years, although “theft by earmark” has been in effect since the 1960s.