A Matter of Qualifications
Balint Vazsonyi

We are approaching the time when the noise will subside and the serious business of evaluating the evidence against the president will commence. Claims of a constitutional crisis notwithstanding, those will be the moments when America's greatness rises to heights beyond the imagination of an envious world.

Nothing must interfere with the integrity of those moments when ordinary mortals are called upon to step into the shoes of America's immortal founders. For it is in their capacity of elevating each and every one of us that the founding principles, the founding documents, bear witness to the success of self government.

Pollsters may continue to poll, pundits may continue to pund, but it will be the members of the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives who will bear the burden of setting the course. So far as it is humanly possible, they must be free from interference, free from external influence, free from internal conflict. They must qualify so that they may have our unqualified trust.

Five members of the Judiciary Committee are listed on the Internet as members of the so-called Progressive Caucus, a group of 58 U.S. Representatives. The site itself belongs to the "Democratic Socialists of America" - a contradiction in terms, of course, since socialism and democracy do not mix, all rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. They are Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert C. Scott (D-VA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

The Democratic Socialists are "the principle U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International." Their agenda is of the classic socialist vintage: a world based not on law, not on principle, not on morality, but on a series of unattainable goals defined in broad and, in reality, meaningless terms. Each rationale begins with the phrase, "We are socialists because..." The central tenets (labeled "Campaign for Economic Justice") prescribe what "corporations and the wealthy" must give up, and what everybody else on the planet, as well as the planet itself, must receive.

The Washington representative of DSA confirms that the "Campaign for Economic Justice" is being pursued in collaboration with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Given the extensive information the site offers about each member, and their adopted agenda, it seems reasonable to assume that they have no quarrel with the listings as they appear.

In a sense, credit is due to members of the Progressive Caucus for disclosing their commitment. Their example should point the way for countless others who continue to conceal their true political colors. Why? After all, socialism is one of the only two major avenues of interpreting the world and of charting the future - there is nothing shameful about an honest belief that it is the better of the two. And if constituents cast their votes in the full knowledge of these members' beliefs, they have legitimate seats in the House of the People.

But the application of the most complex duty that our Constitution places upon the shoulders of representatives calls for men and women who are firmly anchored in and unequivocally committed to its letter and its spirit. Such men and women cannot have a score to settle with society. Such men and women must not have succumbed to the myth that the shortcomings in America's past somehow detract from the phenomenal inspiration of those who, more than two centuries ago, created the American miracle.

Such men and women cannot be hostage to socialism. The Constitution of the United States and Socialism are on opposite sides.

Where America's founders provided for power to remain with The People, socialism vests power in a ruling elite. Where America's founders sought to form a more perfect Union, socialism advocates diversity. Where America's founders sought to insure domestic Tranquility, socialism thrives on discontent, leading to warfare between groups, classes, sexes, races. Where America's founders sought to establish Justice, socialism pursues "social justice" - which in reality means doing away with the rule of law, again rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.

The rule of law is essentially neutral. That is what the blindfold on the statue symbolizes. Socialism removes the blindfold and makes law the servant of its political agenda. For socialists, every realm of human activity, every function of the human brain carries a political charge. Everything is placed in service of the agenda.

Does the House Committee on the Judiciary accommodate five socialists? The members themselves ought to answer that question. If socialists they are, their qualifications for the coming process are in doubt. This has nothing to do with being duly elected members of Congress, but everything to do with their real agenda. If they are not socialists, they should have their names removed from the web site. And, since "progressive" is often simply code for socialist, the Caucus might consider a different designation.

In the meantime, the people of this country have much to be concerned about. How do members function in a judiciary committee if their sense of justice is informed by class warfare, as opposed to the law?

For that matter, how does the Democratic Party account for placing the same members in the Constitution Subcommittee if, as it now appears, they do not regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?