Pink Slips or Handcuffs?

As the dust settles on the 2024 election, eyes have turned to Donald Trump's cabinet picks, and discussions are taking place on what Elon Musk and RFK Jr. will do to drain the swamp. Hopefully, one of the first moves by the incoming administration will be to ban the phrase "drain the swamp." It's time for some new pithy sayings.  

Catchphrases aside, it's a safe bet that many in the bureaucratic class are freshening their resumes between bouts of sweaty panic. As Inauguration Day draws near, the cries will continue to go up that the incoming administration will abuse power and force its values and worldview on everyone else. And that's pretty rich, coming from people who, both within and without government, spent the last four years abusing power and forcing their worldviews on everyone else.

The issue is not our form of government. Federalism works well when it is actually adhered to. The issue is with the people in power. And of late, people in power at many levels of government have been taking their cues from the nanny state. Can we blame them? Up until Election Day, the uninformed members of our populace could easily have been cajoled into believing that the iron-fisted nanny state was an excellent model for governance. As the old saying goes, the fish rots from the head down. For an interesting case study, we turn to Fannin County, Georgia. 

Reason notes that on October 30, Brittany Patterson needed to take one of her sons to a medical appointment. Her youngest son, Soren, who was ten at the time, was nowhere to be seen. Since the family lives in a rural area on 16 acres, Brittany assumed that Soren had ventured off into the nearby woods as any normal boy would. Or he might have been at his grandmother's house. In any event, she was not worried. As she told Reason, "The mentality here is more Free-Range."

Soren was not in the woods or having cookies at his grandma's. He had decided to walk into town. In this case, the "town" is Mineral Bluff (population 370), just under a mile away. A local buttinsky saw Soren walking and asked if he was okay. Soren assured the woman that he was fine, but she was not convinced. She called the authorities, and Soren was picked up by a female deputy who called Brittany. 

Brittany did not know that Soren was walking to town but knew he was not in any danger. The deputy proceeded to hector Brittany about the risks of a 10-year-old walking alone in the Middle of Nowhere, Georgia. The deputy delivered Soren to his grandfather, and Brittany gave the kid a talking-to. That should have been the end of it. Of course, it was not.

Later that evening, another deputy showed up at the home. Brittany was arrested, and her phone and purse were seized. She was fingerprinted, photographed, and was forced to don an orange jumpsuit. She was soon released on $500 bail. The next day, a DCFS caseworker arrived at the home and interviewed the older son. Reason reports:

A few days later, DFCS presented Patterson with a "safety plan" for her to sign. It would require her to delegate a "safety person" to be a "knowing participant and guardian" and watch over the children whenever she leaves home. The plan would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son's phone allowing for his location to be monitored.

Brittany refused to sign the plan, although all potential charges against her would be dropped if she did so. She could also face the loss of her kids, a $1,000 fine, and a year in jail. Reason said that in an extra Orwellian touch, DCFS sent Soren a birthday card signed by the caseworker when the boy turned 11. 

The country is in need of reform. The system is broken in places—many places. But moreover, the people who run it, from D.C. on down, have, in many cases, become too enamored with power. It should be no surprise that the powers-that-be in Fannin County felt the need to flex on Brittany. They have seen how the government can impose its will with impunity on any dissenter, no matter how small. 

I have had several discussions with people on what the new administration should do about people such as Alejandro Mayorkas, who played fast and loose with immigration to the point of lying about ICE agents whipping Haitian migrants, or Merrick Garland, who turned the DOJ into Emperor Biden's Praetorian Guard/Stasi.* 

Some have told me that Trump should refrain from prosecuting these people and their cohorts since it would give the impression that he was out for revenge against his political enemies. The optics would be wrong and impact future elections. One person suggested that the government pass a law prohibiting public officials from doing such things in office. 

I pointed out that we have the U.S. Constitution and directed them specifically to the Fourth Amendment, although others would also apply. We have laws that prohibit abuses of power. The problem is that the people in power did not care. I have also talked to those who opined that the offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law—an op-ed piece on American Wire advocates for Garland to get what is coming to him. 

There is a certain merit to the attitude of "malice toward none and charity for all." And conservatives should be wary of adopting the principles they are trying to combat. But Mayorkas and Garland upended many, many lives because of their lust for power, political ideology, or for the sake of holding a grudge. Once Trump's team is in place, will these people be merely dismissed to enjoy their government pensions and take places on corporate boards or at colleges? I'd be interested in your take in the comment section. What do we do with such people?

In the meantime, one thing is clear: the new administration does not have to drain a swamp as much as it has to snake a toilet that is almost permanently clogged. And hopefully, the government officials at the other end of the pipe will see that they were elected to serve, not anointed to reign. 

*Okay, maybe it wasn't Biden's Praetorian Guard, but it was somebody's.