I have long resisted the use of the term "regime" in referring to any U.S. administration. Rush Limbaugh used to do it in reference to Obama, partly for the shock value, but it was not meant to be taken seriously as a description.
The term "regime" implies a government that is not elected, and therefore illegitimate. That is why I have never used it -- nor do I think it would be appropriate to describe the Biden administration as a regime for that reason.
But there may be other reasons to describe the Biden administration as a "regime" -- as Lee Smith argues in a forthcoming interview this weekend on Breitbart News Sunday (SiriusXM 125, Sunday, August 28, 4-7 p.m. ET).
Smith points to the behavior of the Department of Justice and the FBI over the past several years. The fact that core parts of our civil service -- especially law enforcement -- are now politicized is a key marker of a "regime" society.
What that means is that we are no longer operating according to an independent set of rules, but according to a system in which the party in power can make up the rules as it goes along, even dictating truth and falsehood.
The only way to oppose a regime effectively is to create opposing factions within the regime -- not to support an opposing political party outside the regime itself. Democratic changes, if they come, will be temporary and rare.
Does this sound shocking? What's shocking is how many examples of regime behavior you start to see once you adopt this new frame. President Biden calling the opposition "semi-fascist" is one example; he ran on "unity!"
Another is Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) of New York telling Republicans that if they don't like the way her state is run, they should leave for Florida, where they presumably belong. It's ugly, shocking, and dismisses half the country.
We've seen that kind of rhetoric from both sides -- but rarely pushed with some enthusiasm from people in positions of power, and here the push is coming almost entirely from Democrats. They are sporting for a fight, or a fissure.
Having been a Democrat once, I can speculate that they are likely acting out of the quiet conviction that if you just apply enough pressure, the other side of the country will "evolve" away (since they are presumed to be more primitive).
Then you can get on with the business of governing the country the way you want it to be governed, and frogmarch everyone toward your left-wing utopia (once you can convince the other left-wingers to agree on a single vision).
How about the differential treatment meted out to Black Lives Matter rioters, almost none of whom were prosecuted, much less jailed; and January 6 rioters, some of whom are still sitting in jail awaiting trial, 18 months after the fact?
Still shocked? Ask yourself if a Republican can live openly as such in a liberal neighborhood. Ask yourself if the same is true in reverse -- and why there might be a different answer to those two questions. This is scary stuff.
This is life under the Biden "regime." It's a democratically-elected government -- I'll acknowledge that. What's wrong is that it's not behaving that way. It says it is defending democracy, while it is destroying liberty and crushing opposition.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
