…when a nation’s leader refuses to face reality.
Immediately following the German attack on Poland, on September 1 of 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s government temporized. A message to was sent to Germany proposing a ceasefire and an immediate conference, promising that “If the German Government should agree to withdraw their forces, then His Majesty’s Government would be willing to regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces crossed the Polish frontier.”
According to General Edward Spears, who was then a member of Parliament, the assembly had been expecting a declaration of war. Few were happy with this temporizing by the Chamberlain government. Spears describes the scene:
Arthur Greenwood got up, tall, lanky, his dank, fair hair hanging to either side of his forehead. He swayed a little as he clutched at the box in front of him and gazed through his glasses at Chamberlain sitting opposite him, bolt-upright as usual. There was a moment’s silence, then something very astonishing happened.
Leo Amery, sitting in the corner seat of the third bench below the gangway on the government side, voiced in three words his own pent-up anguish and fury, as well as the repudiation by the whole House of a policy of surrender. Standing up he shouted across to Greenwood: “Speak for England!” It was clear that this great patriot sought at this crucial moment to proclaim that no loyalty had any meaning if it was in conflict with the country’s honour. What in effect he said was: “The Prime Minister has not spoken for Britain, then let the socialists do so. Let the lead go to anyone who will.” That shout was a cry of defiance. It meant that the house and the country would neither surrender nor accept a leader who might be prepared to trifle with the nation’s pledged word.
Greenwood then made a speech which I noted that night as certain to be the greatest of his life; a speech that would illuminate a career and justify a whole existence. It was remarkable neither for eloquence nor for dramatic effect, but the drama was there, we were all living it, we and millions more whose fate depended on the decisions taken in that small Chamber.
I was reminded of this occasion by the upcoming Bibi Netanyahu speech to Congress and the hostile political reactions to it. The reality is that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons represents a severe threat not only to Israel but to the entire world, and by speaking to this point, he is serving not only his own country, but all of us.
Not only has Obama failed to represent the security interests of United States on this matter, he has failed the entire civilized world. By inviting Netanyahu to address Congress, John Boehner has effectively said “Speak for the world!”, just as Leo Amery called on Arthur Greenwood to “Speak for England!”
General Spears asserted that “no loyalty had any meaning if it was in conflict with the country’s honour.” Today in America, very sadly, there are numerous individuals–in Congress and elsewhere–who have chosen to put their party and ideological loyalty ahead of our country’s honor and the world’s safety.
There has been a firestorm of criticism directed against the Netanyahu speech, and the Democratic Party leadership is evidently encouraging members to boycott it. I have seem multiple comments on pro-Israel Facebook threads asserting that the speech should be cancelled because it “politicizes Israel’s security”…as if that security was not already highly politicized. ADL head Abraham Foxman has called for Netanyahu to cancel the speech, asserting that the matter has become a “circus.”
US let Iran in control of Iraq.
With sections imposed on Iran news coming from Iraqi officials telling the trad with Iran reached the highest level since, $13 Billon dollar trade, furthermore Qasim Sulymani turing Iraq free with his Quds militia just killing iraqi civilians leaving ISL flourishing in Iraq.
Last month news report Sulymani in Lebanon after king a terrorist there while he is on the top list of terrorists in the world.
While US and its top military and its western force in Iraq!
I’d be careful about urging anyone to “speak for the world” in this case.
Really, if Israel were nuked tomorrow a large portion of the world’s people would shrug their shoulders. A somewhat smaller part of the world’s population would erupt in riotous celebrations that would last for months.
Many of the shruggers would pretend not to notice. Other shruggers would spend considerable effort urging those of us who would be horrified to just calm down; what’s done is done, no?
Gene…Israel is not the only country threatened by Iranian nuclear programs and the regime’s general aggressiveness, anymore than Czechoslovakia (“a far away country…people of whom we know nothing,” in Neville Chamberlain’s words at the time of Munich) was the only issue involved with Nazi expansionism.
I have no doubt that there would be considerable celebrating in the streets, and mild hurrumphing by Europe, at the charred remains of Israel after a nuclear strike. These are the same people that ask “why didn’t the Jews fight back when ordered to cram themselves into boxcars headed for certain death?” They will not go down without a fight this time.
It is disturbing that many if not most members of the Congressional Black Caucus intend to boycott the Netanyahu speech:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/12/much-of-congressional-black-caucus-ignoring-benjamin-netanyahus-speech/
I wasn’t aware that black people were any more invulnerable to terrorism, nuclear or otherwise, than people of different ethnicities. Actually, of course, there is nothing racial about the threat poised by the Iranian regime, and casting it in those terms implicitly assumes that Americans should base their political ideas and political support on skin color rather than on personal views about the issues.
We can’t know how much Obama personally had to do with these CBC members’ decisions, but the timing of the announcements vis-a-vis Obama’s meeting with the CBC is highly suspicious.
Assume no coincidences.
Obama has got a team on the ground right now in Tel Aviv working to defeat Netanyahu
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.639158
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=4476
In 2013 the U.S. State Department provided One Voice Israel with a grant of $233,500 (for a project to “Defray Costs for Program ‘Campaign to Support the Negotiations’ Between the Israel Government & Palestinian Authority- Building Up Public SUPPORT”) and One Voice Palestine with a grant of $115,776 (for a project to “Work to Inspire Civic Participation Through Grassroots ACTIVISM”).
“Really, if Israel were nuked tomorrow a large portion of the world’s people would shrug their shoulders. A somewhat smaller part of the world’s population would erupt in riotous celebrations that would last for months.”
Not too many celebrations in areas that are radioactive glass. Israel will not go down alone. All the Middle East would be a cinder and Europe should pay attention as that is where their oil comes from. No fracking in Europe.
The Cordesman study of an Iran-Israel war is no longer on the CSIS site but I summarized it here when it came out.
Today, I received a copy of Anthony Cordesman’s assessment of a nuclear exchange betwen Iran and Israel. He sets the time as 2010. He estimates Israeli casualties at “between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead.” Iranian casuaties would be far higher at “some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days.” His analysis of the outcome ?
“It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term,” Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.”
He was a pessimist and thought it would be 2010. He also estimated that Israel would take out the other Arab states.
“Walker concludes that Cordesman’s analysis spells out “the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.”
Europe should care but then they should have cared in 1938.
“if Israel were nuked tomorrow”¦”
how many hours do you think will pass until every Islamic capital, Mecca, and Media are puddles of glass? Israel knows who its enemies are. No one, no state, no terrorist would have to claim responsibility. Everyone would know.
Great post, David. I wish it weren’t necessary to make the point you made.
jhoover seems to have trouble with English. I wonder why ?
The “Arrow” system mentioned in Tony Cordesman’s essay has been replaced with the “Iron Dome” system which seems more effective. No one could stand aside, except perhaps the US which is, of course, “The Great Satan.” I don’t see us escaping and we could well be the first target. New York City probably has as many Jews as most of Israel. The Buenos Aires cultural center was much smaller.
In terms of jewish population by metropolitan areas, Wikipedia has a list. Israel has 4 cities in the top ten. The US has 5 of them. The last one in the top ten is Paris, France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_urban_areas
Of the 92 ranked metro areas on the list, 47 are in the US. It’s an interesting page, if probably incomplete.
America has it’s own problems.
And Israel can take care of itself.
Iran has zero bombs now, Israel 200-400 depending on the estimates. Quite enough even with 200.
America has it’s own problems, and it’s Boehner who should speak for America. Not Bibi. I admire Bibi but this is not in America’s interest. It’s in the GOP’s interest, possibly Bibi’s interest, perhaps Israel’s interests but not America’s.
Also it probably ill served Poland, England or France to offer guarantees it could not Honor, and didn’t. England wasn’t ready for war, France less ready and Poland not at all. Hitler did offer a deal to the Poles even military cooperation and alliance. England offered a guarantee even Churchill thought foolish.
Poland was enslaved until 1989, and the outside power that had the most to do with it was America not England.
Chamberlain is ill served by History, mostly over a piece of paper from Munich PR stunt. In reality he did more to get England ready for war than he’s given credit for, he didn’t completely mobilize the economy towards armaments but he did partially mobilize it especially in the area of fighters. France see sawed back and forth between left and right wing governments and didn’t get serious until 1939.
This leaves aside the question of whether it was ever wise to tell Germany to remain poor, which was the English power towards Germany. In continuing to forever fight Napoleon we got Hitler, in continuing to keep fighting Hitler who knows what we’ll get.
War is serious business and not an emotional one.
Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, she simply would prefer nuclear monopoly in her neighborhood. She would also prefer others to do the dirty work. It’s not selling.
Agree about Chamberlain.
Disagree about Poland: I blame the jailer.
Disagree about Israel. It has limited options without US cooperation. Since the current US administration is hostile Israel takes a huge risk by attacking Iran.
Bibi has gained nothing by trying to appease Obama. Since the American Left is working hard to keep him from speaking he must be doing something right for a change. If our Republicans are too weak to speak the truth let him do it.
Disagree about Iran. It’s a threat to us and our allies. We could do a lot if we cooperated more with Israel. But the real problem is that Obama has been protecting the mullahs.
IF Israel is nuked I certainly hope they let fly against the entire Islamic middle east. I couldn’t care less if they killed 500 million, if anything it would cleanse an evil ideology from a great portion of the world and be a net good. That part of the world doesn’t contribute anything at all to humanity in the present day. The oil is still in the ground and could be recovered in due course, it is likely that many of the wells would just keep on pumping even as their former owners were vaporized.
The invasion of the US from Mexico is vastly more important to the future well-being of Americans than anything that Iran is likely to do.
Vxxc2014 – What dirty work does Israel want done and by which nations? Israel wants a monopoly on nuclear weapons? They have this and could have easily destroyed their enemies many times over, enemies that would not blink an eye to the slaughter of millions, yet chose not to do so. Why is this in your opinion? Finally, there is a small, yet considerable, voice in Israel that has no desire to kill people in other nations, even if most of Israel and its people are destroyed. The talk of getting back at the nations that may destroy Israel is of no help to the discussion. Peace and sanity have to remain.
It is always interesting to see what comes out into the open when Israel is the subject.
Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, she simply would prefer nuclear monopoly in her neighborhood. She would also prefer others to do the dirty work. It’s not selling.
Do you have theory about why Israel has not used the nuclear monopoly ?
In reality he did more to get England ready for war than he’s given credit for, he didn’t completely mobilize the economy towards armaments but he did partially mobilize it especially in the area of fighters.
Hitler was convinced by his delusions and by Chamberlain, that England would not fight, even after the Polish guarantee. Such delusions are dangerous. Japan was convinced that the US would not take casualties and would sue for peace leaving Japan in possession of the western Pacific.
The Nazis, even in 1943, were hobbled by their weird ideology that emphasized Kinder, Kuche, Kirche which meant that women were not to be used as the Russians and the US used them in war work. The Wiki article is dismayingly PC but the phrase was an accurate description of the Nazi emphasis on reducing the impact of the war on civilians (German civilians, of course) until the bombing made this impossible. They even brought women from Poland to be servants in German homes.
Iran has similar delusions about the US and Israel. They are very dangerous delusions and are the type that lead to war. Obama is feeding this misinformation as British PM Stanley Baldwin, not Chamberlain, did in the 1930s.
I disagree about the danger from Iran, Jim. Mexico is a problem but Iran is a threat.
Mike K – The idea of Iran as a threat to the US is utterly ridiculous.
“Do you have theory about why Israel has not used the nuclear monopoly ?”
Because there would be horrible repercussions for just DOING it preemptively?
Because Israel hasn’t had to? Because using nuclear weapons is an utter desperation move under any circumstances?
“What dirty work does Israel want done and by which nations?”
It’s America not nations plural, and they want us to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Or why is he here?
“Mexico isn’t a threat, but Iran is”…I’m going to appeal to geography and what’s actually happening in America, as opposed what may happen a world away to another country.
Bibi is not to blame if he addresses the US Congress or looks out for Israel’s interests, Americans are…and Boehner is punting on leadership to the popular among his base of a foreign land.
Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, Meso Invasion is.
The GOP is making a mistake that ill serves both nations.
I think the promises made to Poland were absurd. There was nothing Britain could do for Poland, except perhaps add its small army to any French attack on Germany. Once it was clear that France was not going to act, there was no point in Britain promising anything. Similarly, there was nothing much that Britain could do about Czechoslovakia once it was clear that the French weren’t going to act. In fact, since the French had done nothing about Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland, it was foolish for Britain to talk of guarantees, action, or what have you. We had no borders with Germany, Czechoslovakia or Poland, and no army of much consequence.
Britain’s most rational policy would have been to have despaired of France and put its pennies into an entirely defensive strategy just in case Hitler turned out not to be a Bismarck (as many people hoped) but a Napoleon (as some people feared). Alas, the electorate was dead against rearmament. Conscription was out of the question. What a mess.
World War II – I suppose we can keep arguing it forever. I might make a point that whatever historical arguments one may make it’s a mistake to keep fighting the last war.
Or for some the only war.
I’m going to say that England made the mistake of continuing to fight Bonaparte for 100 years after he was gone and ended up with first the Kaiser and then Hitler, to the ruin of the British Empire and indeed Europe. This is not saying Germany was blameless, it says that Germany was rational in trying to capture the same captive markets either as external colonies [WW1] or internal conquered lands to the East [WW2]. Hitler’s reasoning was he needed the same market as the United States. Having large export markets has been a priority for Germany since the 1871 reunification, and it’s a fact that Germany for all it’s industry and military power had poor citizens compared to it’s neighbors and rivals, in particular England and the United States. England then and America now follow the dogma of balance of power on the Continent and not letting any single land power dominate to ruin before and we may now again.
I am going to say export markets are critical to Germany now, hence the EU/Euro/Greece et al imbroglio. It is a mistake to frustrate others legitimate aspirations not to be poor.
Like say…Russia now.
Iran is a concern to Israel, possibly an existential threat if Iran is willing to commit national suicide to launch several nuclear weapons [it doesn’t yet have] into Israel with it’s own annihilation then certain.
If Iran isn’t willing to make that sacrifice it isn’t, it’s just a more peer dangerous neighbor.
Now Israel lives in the World, most of which is dangerous. In fact the Western Hemisphere is much safer even in Latin America over time than the Eastern. If it’s a core interest of the United States that Israel be where it is beyond all possibility of serious harm, along the lines of mothers [or grandmothers] who don’t let their children play outside and this is the most pressing problem confronting the United States to such an extent to grant an extraordinary privilege Winston Churchill was only granted with humility by President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor [mainly to buck us up] than this speech makes sense.
If it isn’t then it doesn’t.
It isn’t, and it doesn’t.
The most pressing danger to America is…Americans. For you see the interests of our government and elites are in fatal opposition to the nation at large. This is of course no secret here, nor is the growing explosion building under all of us every day.
We shan’t of course work out our differences by Talk. Barring the Second coming of Christ in person, which might be problematic calculations if you don’t believe he came around the first time. We are not talking our way out of this.
Bibi is acting in Israel’s interests, not America’s. The American government is not and cannot act in the interests of either. Boehner and the GOP know well their interests lie with Washington, all the elites boats were burned on the Hudson and Potomac in 2008-2010.
In context of that this PR stunt will be something Israel and it’s children may well come to regret.
I would tell anyone now to stay out of American politics for toxic shall soon become lethal.
This stunt will be regretted.
“This stunt will be regretted.”
I assume you also include Obama’s, and in the past Clinton’s, attempt to elect the leftist candidates in Israel. Is that what you meant ?
Germany was the most advanced and powerful nation in Europe after Bismarck got her united. He was not interested in any more war. Wilhelm II was a fool and a knave who set off WWI out of frustration at his English cousins.
“I’m going to say that England made the mistake of continuing to fight Bonaparte for 100 years after he was gone”
I have no idea what this means. I assume you are a Germanophile and think Hitler had a point in his demand for “Lebensraum.”
The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans until they realized that they had no place in the “New Reich.”
“it’s a mistake to keep fighting the last war.”
So you don’t agree that “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
OK. That’s settled.
Obama’s fine with interfering in small-town American political controversies, Israeli elections, Honduran elections, Egyptian elections, Libya, the banking and tax systems of other countries, having David Cameron lobby our Congress on Obama’s behalf, insulting Christians, promoting Islam, protecting the mullahs, protecting the Cuban dictatorship, opening our southern border by executive fiat, etc. But it’s an outrage if American legislators accountable to the voters sponsor a respected foreign leader to speak on important matters of national security. Give me a break.
“But it’s an outrage if American legislators accountable to the voters sponsor a respected foreign leader to speak on important matters of national security.”
Hear, hear.
I am not outraged at Bibi speaking, I think it’s a trick by the GOP to buy time and the votes from the justly crestfallen and betrayed base with a meaningless publicity stunt. I don’t think it’s wrong except that it’s a mistake.
I think it’s wrong to interfere in another nation’s elections but as World Chief Democracy [TM] we seem to have arrogated that right as permanent policy. This is our mistake and we’ll reap bitter fruit of it. Our reckoning with ourselves will give many their opportunity for revenge and I don’t blame them.
“I’m going to say that England made the mistake of continuing to fight Bonaparte for 100 years after he was gone”. I mean to continue to pursue a supposed balance of power on the Continent to such ruinous lengths that first the French and then the Germans are driven to desperate lengths. No one nation must come to dominate the Eurasian landmass..other than of course England and then America. No matter how many times we march to ruin.
It’s also usually a mistake to keep fighting the last war. Even if your convinced only 1 war ever counted.
Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it= means every foreign leader is Hitler and must be treated as such, when it’s arguable that even Hitler wasn’t “HITLER!!” [TM], and whatever he was seems to be rare enough in History.
I do learn from History, it’s just that I’ve learned more than one lesson ..that is to say HITLER!! Everyone who opposes us is HITLER!!
Was Saddam Hitler? He was closer to Stalin of course.
Fine. I’m listening. Who is the Iranian Hitler, how is the analogous to 1938 and where is this Iranian Wehrmacht? And Luftwaffe?
We’re not abandoning the Czechs here, mind you they too would have been better off making their own deals [very strong military for their size].
Israel is better off on it’s own. Our capitol and it’s politics are both toxic and soon enough to be lethal. I can’t imagine what he thinks he’ll get from this PR stunt, but I mean him no ill.
Oh and no I’m not a German or Germanophile, or a supporter of Lebensraum.
Or a Holocaust denier if I may pre-emptively rule that out for you.
Not every enemy is Hitler. Not every deal is Munich.
And Iran is a mild peripheral national security for the US on it’s most Jihad day. It’s a major concern for Israel because they live nearer.
I do understand the Nazi’s had sane if vicious goals, that they had economic problems, that most of Germany was poor and crowded. This was the case when Germany tried to get overseas colonies and it was the case before WW2. Ruthless is not insane.
It was a mistake to keep fighting the last war in 1914, 1940 and it’s a mistake now.
We need to fight the wars we have now, and the next wars. Not the one several wars back. I think we’ll discover what real living enemies as opposed to dead phantom hyped ones are like.
Speaking of which if you want to protect loved ones then get cold, instead of the male versions of “The View.” Hysteria blinds one to both facts and failure, frankly if we’re going to keep talking about it we’re acting like the 1930s French.
Dearieme – It certainly would be interesting if England and France gave Poland substantial help in their fight against Hitler.
How many States will this Republican trick win Vexee? There may be much more at stake.
“I mean to continue to pursue a supposed balance of power on the Continent to such ruinous lengths that first the French and then the Germans are driven to desperate lengths.”
So, it was the British fault that On 16 July 1870, the French parliament voted to declare war on the German Kingdom of Prussia and hostilities began three days later. The German coalition mobilised its troops much more quickly than the French and rapidly invaded northeastern France. The German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery.
Among other inconvenient facts was the state of French smallpox immunization. Napoleon’s army was immunized by Baron Larrey, Napoleon’s chief surgeon. In 1870, the army of Napoleon II was not immunized and thousands died of smallpox while the Prussian army was immune. Ten thousand French prisoners died of small pox.
I just don’t see why this was the fault of the British but I may not have your fine sense of outrage.
The world keeps getting technically more advanced and the nasty toys that can bring on Armageddon remain the same level of complexity. Ultimately this brings more and more entities into the nuclear club. At first they will all be states but that’s not going to last forever either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can do much to change this dangerous state of affairs.
There are no small, peripheral threats in the nuclear club. City killers are the simplest nuclear weapons to build. They don’t have to be very accurate, just big.
Vxxc2014 – Nuclear weapons plus millennialists who seek to bring the hidden imam out of hiding are a very bad mix. Take a look at Imam Mesbah-Yazdi as well as the Hojjatieh society to get an idea of how bad things could get with Iran as a nuclear power.
As for threatening Russia’s ambition not to be poor, How is Crimea going to make Russia rich?
Again it’s a mistake to keep fighting the last war.
It’s a mistake to pursue dogmatic policies, in this case keeping Eurasia weak and divided aka balance of power at these costs.
It was a mistake for the English to keep fighting Napoleon until they got the Kaiser and so Hitler.
It’s a mistake to ignore geography.
The biggest mistake is to be looking abroad for enemies when our true quarrels are at home.
Vxxc2014 – What was the last war in your opinion?
In the face of a united eurasia, the US is able to unilaterally keep its independence and freedom, true or false?
What are our true quarrels?
I agree with you that it is a mistake to ignore geography and to not balance your threat assessments to current circumstances.
Vxxc2014 – “What was the last war in your opinion?”
A: The last wars I referenced here or another post were continuing to fight Napoleon and perhaps Louis XIV in 1914. Maintaining this dogmatic approach to policy cost England alone 2.5 million men and the Empire, as well as laying waste Europe.
There comes a point where you look at costs and either quit or don’t start.
“In the face of a united eurasia, the US is able to unilaterally keep its independence and freedom, true or false?”
A: of course we are. We have not only the geography and conventional might but nuclear weapons. By the way what is this United Eurasian Bugaboo monster stacked in ratio against 1914-1945 and the repercussions and costs the West is still reeling from?
“What are our true quarrels?”
A: between our governing elites and the great mass of the American People, in particular the ethnic majority. This was not our choice but theirs. We will not be talking our way out of this for the stakes are existential on both sides. Moreover there is rabid and racial hatred on the part of the elites, and utter distrust [and disgust] on behalf of the people.
Further while they have no Troops [or Police] they can trust, we have no leaders. The Left has been very good at making sure any potential leader from PTA to President and all between are either co-opted or eliminated.
Our elites have none to negotiate with, no one to forgive their sins. What they do have instead is a vast and armed population that also knows the stakes are existential.
There will be no deal, we’ll get no elected representation because they’ll allow none but the mortal conflicts not only remain but grow ever larger.
It would have been wiser to let us have True Tribunes, but whom the Gods want destroyed they have made mad.
Vxxc2014 – I was looking for the last war with respect to the US, since I am an american. I’m aware of the principle. I was just looking to see how you’d apply it with the US history of warfare over the past 30 years +/-20.
I’ll leave the idea of fortress America alone, suffice to say I’m not so sanguine about the prospect.
As to our quarrels between the people and the elites, I have an observation. There was a dust up in Ferguson recently. You might have heard of it. The people of Ferguson could have, if they wished, simply circulated petitions to disincorporate, have already held an election on the matter, and thrown out every single local police officer and politician out of a job. At this point they could reincorporate and start over. Not one street demonstration was necessary for them to achieve total expulsion of their local elites. They didn’t do it. Just like the people of Ferguson, we have a number of simple paths to change things that we simply do not exercise. We have not even properly identified the scope of government, much less the scope of our ruling elite. We allow our oversight methods to fall behind the state of the art by decades. Much of this could be fixed without government expenditure or legislative change yet we simply do not bother to do these things.
We do not compile a list of governments. We do not know all their jurisdictions. We have no ability to say, “in this place in the United States, these are all the laws, rules, and regulations that apply”. In short, independent of ideology, we have allowed government to metastasize beyond all reason while not growing our oversight abilities right along with it. The kicker is that state of the art oversight is cheaper both in time and in money.