Is It Happening All Over Again?

The past week brought this: Is it happening all over again?

The question popped up when reading an article about why the so-called reformers who would drain "The Swamp" seem get waylaid pretty quickly once they're elected and spend their first days in Washington D.C. So the question naturally comes up: Is this happening al over again?

Frankly, it's an open question with no certain answer - yet. With the current Administration just gaining some traction, one can argue that the changes they sought have manifested themselves in significant ways. Whether you agree with their strategy and tactics or not, they have:

- Taken action to curtail illegal immigration, and to deport some segments of that population. (Of course, whether the numbers add up to anything significant relative to the millions of illegals, well, we'll only know in time whether that's the case.)

-  Cut or greatly reduced the size of some government agencies; laid off thousands of government employees. (Here again, with the previous administration having hired - it is reported - 500,000 new employees, it would seem that only if the lay offs exceed 500,000 could any dent be made in the huge government payroll. Again, we'll only know it time.)

- Imposed a new and comprehensive regime of tariffs on countries who export their goods to this country. 

- Confronted Universities that receive federal funding (which includes virtually every one of them) and held them accountable for practices that have been characterized as "woke," antisemitic, harboring terrorists and agents of foreign adversarial governments, etc.

-  Caused a swath of education and corporate culture to roll back policies that promote such practices as permitting men ("transgendered") to compete women's sports, promoting LGBTQ+, fluid gender identity, aggressive Marxist groups and other extreme left-wing causes, etc.

Those are perhaps the highlights. 

But does any of this drain the Swamp?

The article referenced above argued that it does not and will not. Their basic premise was that Washington, D.C. has been designed as a tightly knit community that skillfully absorbs any and all comers into its folds and does so rather quickly. They cite certain "reformers" like AOC who no longer openly agitates for her extreme socialist/communist principles (if indeed they are principles). And, of course, reference is made to our current Great Leader and his ambitious, even aggressive promises during his campaign.

Indeed, Ronald Reagan, who famously ran on the premise that government was not our friend, but rather a fundamental problem, ended his term with bigger government.

So something about the tight web weaved over the decades in our nation's capital - the seat of federal power - manages to ensnare everyone, especially those who would threaten the gravy train that our federal government represents to so many.

Not least of these would be the beneficiaries of various government programs. Not that some of the folks who receive this largess don't need the benefits, but we all know that not all are necessary for providing the basics of food, clothing, and shelter - never mind some degree of security. The point is that even is one could begin cutting chunks of excessive spending and curtail slugs of excessive wielding of power and control, you then face the howls of these recipients. And since politicians depend on votes from said howlers, what is the response? It's certainly not draconian cuts. No surprise here.

In some sense, the web has been spun even more tightly and elaborately as that of a spider. But if we consider the description of a spider web from the website of the British Natural History Museum, we'll spot one aspect that doesn't seem to fit:

Spiders make their webs from silk, a natural fibre made of protein.

Not only does spider silk combine the useful properties of high tensile strength and extensibility, it can be beautiful in its own right. 

Naturally, we would note that "beautiful" can't possibly describe the Washington web, can it? 

A normal American who works for a living, was not born to money, and has no desire to wield power over others would reject "beautiful." The problem is, though, there are clearly a pretty solid contingent of other sorts who would actually consider it beautiful.

And so we should not be at all surprised if it is happening all over again. Right?