An Aside on One-Party Rule

More and more editorials are mentioning one-party rule, the prospect of a Democratic Congress and Administration. McCain has made it an issue in the last days of the campaign. The NY Daily News talks about it as a potential boon to a likely Obama presidency.

But the phrase "one-party rule" has not historically referred to a period when Democrats or Republicans held both the White House and Congress. That situation is uncomfortable, but not necessarily disastrous. The real meaning of one-party rule has been dictatorship, a nation in which only one-party effectively is allowed to run for office, making democratic procedure a crafted illusion.

By mixing the two meanings, the innocent and the guilty are both helping create a future in which the meaning of the first becomes the reality of the second.

If Obama is elected, look for the major 'news' outlets to increasingly praise one-party rule. (I put the word in scare quotes since objective reporting is effectively dead, or at least in a coma.) They will blame every failure on unavoidable circumstances — whether the "tragedy" of Constitutionally limited government, the previous Administration, or global warming. They will praise every success as a blessing of "one-party rule." The goal and ultimate outcome is to create actual one-party rule of the totalitarian type.

You read it here first. If it happens, you won't be able to read it here then.