Rules Are What The Little People Play By
Glenn Reynolds interviews Scott Rasmussen for PJTV. The text about the interview is here, by Mark Tapscott, in the WashEx. An excerpt:

Reynolds and Rasmussen analyze an emerging issue of singular importance that is highlighted by the insistence of President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress ramming Obamacare down the throats of the American people despite their clear and consistent opposition to the proposal.

But it's not simply one big bill or even a few big bills, it's a growing sense throughout Middle America - which is to say most citizens who are not part of the political class of elites in New York, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. - that there are two sets of rules.

As Rasmussen describes it in the context of the TARP program and government using tax dollars for bailing out failing corporations:

"The American people have a clear understanding of this. Seventy percent believe that government and big business tend to work together against the rest of us and there is a sense that there are two sets of rules. There is one set of rules that most Americans play by, small businesses, churches, community groups, that has a lot of accountability, and then there is a whole separate set of rules for a political and corporate elite that doesn't want to be bound by such petty things as accountability."

This is no mere populist anti-elistist posturing. Reynolds and Rasmussen base their analysis on the idea that self-governance is not simply about how we pick presidents, senators, mayors, and so forth. It goes to the basic concept underlying our society, which is that we are freedom to live our lives without government interference, but there are all kinds of accountability measures built into our system.

As Rasmussen points out, the traditional understanding is that a business that does well by serving its customers prospers, while the business that doesn't, goes out of business. But when the political and business elites get together, they use tax dollars to bail out failing businesses and establish regulatory regimes to prop them up, keep out competitors, and insure continued revenues.

That way, the political elites get more power and jobs, while the corporate elite gets more income and "market stability." Another word for this arrangement is spelled C-O-N.

Rasmussen's new book: In Search of Self-Governance. Glenn's earlier, related piece, "Consent of the governed -- and the lack thereof":

Not long ago, the federal government enjoyed a stellar reputation for honesty and competence. Now, according to a recent CNN poll, three-quarters of Americans think federal officials aren't honest . (There's no separate survey here on what the "political class" thinks, but I suspect that its numbers would be sunnier, but still appalling, as above). So what do we do with a federal government that many voters think is illegitimate and dishonest?

Well, the Declaration of Independence allows for the prospect of altering or abolishing the government we have in order to get a government that's closer to what we want. That needn't involve anything as violent as the American Revolution or the Civil War, but the need for change -- real, structural change as opposed to campaign-slogan "change" -- is becoming more obvious.

In the past, America has managed to reinvent itself without transformations as wrenching as the Civil War or the Revolution. As the legitimacy of our current arrangements becomes increasingly threadbare, it is perhaps worth thinking about how this might be accomplished again.

What gets me is people who are offended by the Tea Parties. I find dissent against government, no matter whether I agree with those dissenting, highly patriotic and an essential element of democracy.