George Will: un-smart. (Edition 1)

>
(This is the first post in a series that will deal with the writings and general thoughts George Will is un-smart enough to make public.)

Re: Newsweek's "Last Word," December 1, 2008 edition:

Will states that "the doctrine of 'nondelegation'"... is "a necessary concomitant of the Constitution's separation of powers, [and] usually concerns improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch."

Yet Will did not, and does not, believe nondelegation to be important concerning the "improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch." He has never had a problem with what has come to be called W.'s Imperial Presidency.

Will only is concerned with the unconstitutionality of the recent bailouts, and supports his view with an idea he lauds in this instance, and shuns in most others.

Onward: TARP "has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government."

No. Congress still is the only branch of government that can create and pass legislation, even if it is the kind of legislation Paulson and the Treasury explicitly desired.

And the bailout measure was full of enticements that bought representatives' pro-votes.

These weren't in Paulson's plan. They got there because the bailout had to go through Congress' colon.

So I'm still only counting three branches of government.

Will spouts nonsense for a bit, then this: "Socialism is not merely susceptible to corruption; it is corruption—the allocation of wealth and opportunity by political favoritism. Under democratic socialism, such favoritism is then rewarded by financial support, by those favored, of the dispensers of favors."

Will's point must be that W. ran a socialist regime. W. made his friends and supporters rich and filled his government with them, from Heckuva Job Brownie to Halliburton to giving any and every government job to Republicans (being a Repub. was a prerequisite for service, with Dems being weeded out by design in application processes).

The column's second-to-last paragraph is this:

"It serves the left's agenda of expanding the scope of politics by multiplying the forms of dependency on government. Hence liberalism's enthusiasm for enriching the menu of entitlements; hence liberalism's promotion of equality by making more groups and entities equally dependent on government."

All of this is opinion (fine in an opinion piece) unsubstantiated by any facts. It's simply the warped way Will views "liberalism."

Liberalism is (m-w.com):

1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d: capitalized: the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

And Will believes liberalism to be self-evidently evil.

Which allows one to argue rather easily that Will, rather, is evil. And also shows that he doesn't have a proper conception of what he writes about (since he believes the US is a Christian nation and loves nothing more than to profess his adoration for individual freedom, free competition, and especially the self-regulating market).
>