President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics...
[Prefatory Note: This material was first posted to another medium on February 21, 2009. -ISM]
This is from the founder of Chicago style "community organizing" Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals, a book incidentally that along with its writer{1} influenced Barack Obama in his community organizing days and which Alinsky himself dedicated "To Lucifer the first radical." It was also a book which Michelle Obama quoted from in her speech at the Democratic Convention. Without further ado...
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. [Saul Alinsky: From Rules For Radicals pgs. 126-140 (c. 1971)]
If anything, some of these tactics can be used against the agenda of President Obama now.
Note:
{1} On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
On the Closing of Another Major Newspaper and on Journalism in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These musings were triggered by the following article courtesy of Matt Drudge:
Seattle paper says workers told jobs will end
I write this as someone who feels bad for those who fall on hard times as a rule and as someone who has lived in Seattle all his life.{1} I also want to disclose up front that I have read the major papers in this town over the years including the subject of this posting. Having noted those things, I wish I could say I was sympathetic but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been a liberal rag for years. I tire of papers which attempt to present themselves as "impartial" which are anything but and after the travesty of partiality of last year's election -which made even the previously stooped lows of the msm look about as high off the ground as the top of Washington's monument- I have no sympathy for papers which were blatantly partisan last year and which subsequently lose circulation and go out of business. None whatsoever.
The purpose of the media and city newspapers where they make claims of being "objective" should be to walk the walk not just talk it. I noted last year in a dialogue with my friend Joe on the state of journalism{2} and have written on numerous times in years past{3}, journalism has been stained by those who attempt to editorialize or to take the Hunter S. Thompson "gonzo-journalism" approach{4} in news stories and attempt to pass that stuff off as impartial reporting. The mark of a good journalist is akin to that of a good teacher, good lawyer, good justice, etc.; namely the more you do not know their personal views based on how they do their jobs , the better they are.
Journalism is not the same as commentary which is what I do on this weblog and elsewhere but there are some similarities that should be noted. The first is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should strive as much as possible to represent accurately the views they are either concurring with or taking issue with. The second is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should practice disclosure of particular evidences that may or may not bias their views to more than the ordinary degree of bias that can be expected of someone who holds to a view and does so with more than a transient whim. The third is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should attempt to pass themselves off as completely objective or otherwise "impartial" when indeed no one is. However, the commentator is a bit more free to let their emotion show in their work than the journalist who should like Joe Friday be interested in "just the facts" and present them as is without diminuation or personal spin.{5}
And it should go without saying that the basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics should accompany the work of the journalist or the commentator. To the extent that they do not, I have no sympathy for them or those papers or institutions who would give them succor and opportunities.{6} And it is for that reason that my view of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is that of Rome's view of Carthage; namely "carthago delenda est"{7} and any other newspaper that similarly disgraces journalism should see the same fate that they will. Period.
Notes:
{1} This will be changing in the current year though at which precise time I am not current sure.
{2} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism (circa October 17, 2008)
{3} Most notably in this expository musing:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{4} I go over this in the thread in footnote one.
{5} The one exception is if the journalist is writing an op-ed which by its very nature is styled as an "opinion editorial" and therefore the requirement of striving for impartiality does not apply.
{6} This is why I have taken the views I have over the years with those I view as being either unprincipled, unscholarly, or otherwise unethical in their public pronouncements no matter who they are: the principle here does not change because of personal esteem or lack thereof with particular individuals.
{7} Literally "carthage, let it be destroyed."
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These musings were triggered by the following article courtesy of Matt Drudge:
Seattle paper says workers told jobs will end
I write this as someone who feels bad for those who fall on hard times as a rule and as someone who has lived in Seattle all his life.{1} I also want to disclose up front that I have read the major papers in this town over the years including the subject of this posting. Having noted those things, I wish I could say I was sympathetic but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been a liberal rag for years. I tire of papers which attempt to present themselves as "impartial" which are anything but and after the travesty of partiality of last year's election -which made even the previously stooped lows of the msm look about as high off the ground as the top of Washington's monument- I have no sympathy for papers which were blatantly partisan last year and which subsequently lose circulation and go out of business. None whatsoever.
The purpose of the media and city newspapers where they make claims of being "objective" should be to walk the walk not just talk it. I noted last year in a dialogue with my friend Joe on the state of journalism{2} and have written on numerous times in years past{3}, journalism has been stained by those who attempt to editorialize or to take the Hunter S. Thompson "gonzo-journalism" approach{4} in news stories and attempt to pass that stuff off as impartial reporting. The mark of a good journalist is akin to that of a good teacher, good lawyer, good justice, etc.; namely the more you do not know their personal views based on how they do their jobs , the better they are.
Journalism is not the same as commentary which is what I do on this weblog and elsewhere but there are some similarities that should be noted. The first is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should strive as much as possible to represent accurately the views they are either concurring with or taking issue with. The second is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should practice disclosure of particular evidences that may or may not bias their views to more than the ordinary degree of bias that can be expected of someone who holds to a view and does so with more than a transient whim. The third is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should attempt to pass themselves off as completely objective or otherwise "impartial" when indeed no one is. However, the commentator is a bit more free to let their emotion show in their work than the journalist who should like Joe Friday be interested in "just the facts" and present them as is without diminuation or personal spin.{5}
And it should go without saying that the basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics should accompany the work of the journalist or the commentator. To the extent that they do not, I have no sympathy for them or those papers or institutions who would give them succor and opportunities.{6} And it is for that reason that my view of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is that of Rome's view of Carthage; namely "carthago delenda est"{7} and any other newspaper that similarly disgraces journalism should see the same fate that they will. Period.
Notes:
{1} This will be changing in the current year though at which precise time I am not current sure.
{2} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism (circa October 17, 2008)
{3} Most notably in this expository musing:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{4} I go over this in the thread in footnote one.
{5} The one exception is if the journalist is writing an op-ed which by its very nature is styled as an "opinion editorial" and therefore the requirement of striving for impartiality does not apply.
{6} This is why I have taken the views I have over the years with those I view as being either unprincipled, unscholarly, or otherwise unethical in their public pronouncements no matter who they are: the principle here does not change because of personal esteem or lack thereof with particular individuals.
{7} Literally "carthage, let it be destroyed."
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Clarification of a Previous Posting In Lieu of a Recent Posting:
Though I posted a finalized version of a long talked about posting recently{1}, a previous posting which was written around when the former was being sufficiently completed for posting{2} served as an "appetizer" of sorts and dealt specifically with the constitutional question pertaining to declaring war.{3} And of course many who have claimed that the Iraq was illegal on constitutional grounds have asserted that it was required for Congress to actually declare war to enable President George W. Bush to actually go to war. I dealt with that constitutional misunderstanding{4} in a preceding post to avoid making the post in footnote one any longer than it already was. But since that time, I have been made privy to some information from Findlaw on this matter of which I was not completely aware. So without further ado...
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view. [LINK]
Let this additional evidence suffice to illustrate further the absurdity of those who would claim that the constitutionality of the war in Iraq required a formal declaration of war as some well meaning but unfortunately unrealistic individuals have claimed. And furthermore, let this posting be considered an amendment in perpetuity to the posting from December 26, 2007 on the constitutionality of wars fought without a formal declaration.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{2} As for the posting in footnote one, that post had been "in the can" for more than a year with only a few adjustments made (mostly of a minor nature) to the form that was finally blogged on February 6, 2009.
{4} See footnote one.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Another Idea For Federal (or State) Legislative Reform:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
At sundry times and in divers manner your host has written on the issue of legislative reform in the context of major movements underlying the foundational presuppositions of this endeavour. My approach though differs from many in that it encapsulates a process which intends to be diametrically opposed to the ordinary way these matters are addressed. The reason is that I view there to be far too much focus on one or another particular program or one amount of money or another "wasted", etc. I am not one to advocate approaches that deal superficially or insubstantially with these matters because treating symptoms while leaving the basis from which any infection can perpetuate is ultimately not going to work. Furthermore, the federal leviathan is in not a few ways akin to the hydra monster of Greek mythology and its perpetuation is based on some problematical presuppositions which (taken together) complicates matters further. I will have to briefly explain the hydra analogy so that I do not lose any readers in making that analogy -for those who already know this can serve as a refresher of sorts.
For those unfamiliar with the mythical hydra, it had many heads and every time one was cut off, two or three would grow back in its place. This is why any attempt to kill the monster could not be by lopping heads off but instead you had to aim at the heart of the beast to kill it. How this relates to the federal leviathan is that cutting one small program here and there or a stray billion or tens of billions in three plus trillion dollar budgets is like cutting off a "head" and you know darn well that others will grow back in its place -usually through that nasty rider approach which I have proposed a solution to before.{1} But that solution has one element that needs to be tended to at the federal level first and at the state level at least in Washington State I was advised that my solution for the most part is already in place.{2} And however laudable that idea is, we are past the point where the time to implement a policy like that can be casually entertained. For as is evident to anyone not hiding under a rock, we have a reckless fiscally irresponsible congress paired with a reckless fiscally irresponsible president.{3}
In dealing with the debt issue, I have an idea for not only balancing the budget but also to pay down the debt over a ten year period.{4} However, now is not the time to go over that proposal -I mention it here only in passing. For as offense wins games, it is defense that wins championships as the sports dictum goes. So before we get to a proactive approach to paying off the debt we have to get the issue of balancing the budget under control. And one way we can obviously not do this is with hoping to elect leaders who will be responsible in this area.
I have long been critical of the fact that the Republicans not only in their leadership have made a mockery of the notion of limited government.{5} However, it goes beyond that and even gets to the point that the seeming "nostalgia" many have for the Gingrich led Congresses also does not deal with the problem we are facing really is. Instead, the Gingrich congresses at best dealt with symptoms instead of causes. But I am about to go over a proposal to deal with causes. There are three things we need to do on this matter and two of them would not be difficult at all. The third is the hard one and that is going to take the greatest courage. But lest I get ahead of myself here, let us touch on the first two briefly before getting to the purpose of this posting.
To start with, the first of the aforementioned proposals is the reinstatement by the congress of presidential impoundment authority: something which no president since Nixon has been able to do.{6} The second of the proposals would be abolishing the notion of what is called "base line budgeting" a subject I do not have time to go over now but one which starts with the presumption that there will be budgetary increases.{7} Readers are aware that I have noted over the years{8} that to control the terms is to control the debate and the moment we let the debate be based on how much or how little a program or the budget is increased is the moment that we have surrendered the principle we are trying to espouse whether we realize this or not. And that brings us to the third proposal; namely the idea I want to set forth in this posting however incompletely: the idea of indefinite budgetary items.
This is an area which I believe the Republicans now that they appear to have found their spine again can make as a point of emphasis. For besides pushing for executive authority to impound funds{9} and going after the notion of "based line budgeting", it is important to deal efficaciously with the noxious idea that federal programs once they are formed are immortal. And the latter is this third area I want to go over in the material before you -a proposal to get at the root and matrix of the federal leviathan program.
I am not sure how exactly it would be implemented for best possible effect mind you but I first mentioned the idea around the same time as my rider reform initiative for the federal government{10} though it first came to my mind even prior to that point. Its origin was in the debates early in President George W. Bush's first term. I remember hearing all this talk about the tax cuts he and the congress implemented not being "permanent" and the legislation called "the Patriot Act"{11} having to be "renewed" before it "sunsetted." When pondering that and also recalling President Ronald Reagan's comment about eternity on earth is most closely realized in a federal program,{12} I found myself thinking "why can we not have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation"??? And why can this principle not be applies to every piece of legislation not only future and present but also from the past??? And that is the idea basically. How it would be implemented is another matter altogether but this would effectively put the entire federal leviathan on watch program by program and make it a requirement for periodical voting by the legislative bodies to retain certain programs or they automatically expire within say ninety days of a failure to extend them.
In such a proposition the bill extension periods could vary but basically something significant needs to be on the docket for potential expiration in every election cycle and if many of the more important programs were due to expire in off term election years this alone would make midterm elections more interesting as a rule. And it would put a stop to the "inevitability" of the federal leviathan growing larger but indeed would put it constantly in a state of potentially getting smaller and it would take the proactive aspect of cutting the size of government out of the equation to a good degree.{13}
Anyway, that is what I am looking at idea-wise though I do not have an idea as to how it would be fashioned in terms of precise legislation but I suppose if I put the idea out there in some form or another that others can propose a variety of ways of going about this. Furthermore, the terms of the debate or "language control" if you will{14} can be re framed in the context of genuine budgetary reductions and not the political shell game we have seen both parties play for far too long now which coupled with a functional template for constitutional interpretation{15} might see us actually make some real progress in arresting this government behemoth which up to now we have not succeeded in doing for want of a proper strategery of doing do in my mind. Once that is tended to, then we can go on offense and talk about paying down the debt but defense first, offense second. The question is, can we find any representatives or senators who would take this as their rallying cry or not??? Inquiring minds wanna know and perhaps we can if they will not put an amendment into the Constitution to do this.
Notes:
{1} The original idea was first set out in some detail in a posting of January 20, 2004 not long after listening to President Bush's State of the Union that year. I then subsequently went about reiterating on more than a few times in subsequent years some of which are linked to this sentence and the most recent of which can be viewed here:
"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept. (circa December 16, 2008)
{2} The original idea was in a federal context but then I remembered we do not have a line item veto for the executive which the absence of that would basically make the idea inoperative. So before that can be approached, a constitutional amendment or some legislative provision to pass Supreme Court muster granting that power would be required. I then turned to the state level knowing that Washington State is one of over 40 states that have the line item veto for their governors. But Bob Williams (one time gubernatorial candidate for Washington State and head of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) informed me that most of my ideas in that note were already part of Washington state law.
{3} And this was not exactly a problem we were without during the presidency of George W. Bush either of course.
{4} I have gone over it before but do not want to get sidetracked here by reiterating it anew.
{5} [P]erhaps the best way to understand why modern Republicans are not Republicans in the true sense of that term -and further, why I am not and for some time have not been a supporter of the Republican Party in any capacity- is to consider how their leaders view their own party today.
The following discussion between Rush Limbaugh and Ed Gillespie is instructive for one key reason: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is absolutely clueless about the principles of limited government!!! Limbaugh granted could be more consistent on this subject than he is, but when the head of the RNC quite clearly has no idea what "limited government" is, that is not a minor bagatelle folks. Let me clarify if for you.
Limited government is not [reducing] the size of the increase, as Gillespie claims. How can one claim to be for "limited government" by arguing that [w]hen Bill Clinton left office, he proposed his last budget was an increase of 15% in non-defense discretionary spending. President Bush came in, he brought it down to 6% in his first budget, down to 5% in his second. It is at 2% today, non-defense discretionary spending??? This is a mockery of the entire notion of limited government.
First of all, who cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded. The following article covers the subject in some detail -certainly better than the laughable Congressional article which tried to make the impounding sound like a novel notion of Nixon's...But it was not. And while there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 31, 2003]
{6} I do not make distinctions between one part of Reagan's philosophy and another XXXXXXX. Instead, I take into account the entire picture and just as the Democratic Party left Reagan in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Republican Party has left behind the principles of Ronald Reagan the man and the president since 1988. The so-called 1994 revolution was a joke because they did almost nothing they promised to do: unlike Reagan who kept most of his promises.
They could not even close down a single federal department!!! That is ridiculous since so much of the federal leviathan as Reagan recognized was patently unconstitutional. They had the control of the congress and thus the legislative ability to make changes including (if necessary) changing the rules of procedure to make it harder for the Democrats to resist. But they did not. Care to go over the "Contract With America" with me point by point and see how much they actually enacted??? That alone makes my case since if anything the contract was a drop in the bucket of what needed (and needs) to be done to combat the unconstitutional federal behemoth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 11, 2004]
{7} I do not have time to go over this right now but Citizens Against Government Waste has a really good explanation which I refer the reader to at this time.
{8} Most recently in this posting:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{9} If anything this proposal with a Democrat in the White House as we have now might have a better chance of being advanced by the Republicans because the potential of it being chalked up to "self-interest" is refuted by the circumstances of a Democrat being in the White House.
{10} Namely in this part:
Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Since then it has probably been mentioned on my weblog at least a dozen odd times when times or circumstances warranted.
{11} The "Patriot Act" is something which I have some reservations to parts of but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{12} I paraphrase The Gipper here.
{13} And while I am not opposed to a national bank in either principle or on constitutional grounds, it bears noting that the first two national banks of the United States both had sunset clauses in them much as most of the Alien and Sedition legislation of 1798 did; ergo the idea of sunset clauses in government legislation is hardly untraditional from a constitutional standpoint even for seemingly "untouchable" programs.
{14} See footnote eight.
{15} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
At sundry times and in divers manner your host has written on the issue of legislative reform in the context of major movements underlying the foundational presuppositions of this endeavour. My approach though differs from many in that it encapsulates a process which intends to be diametrically opposed to the ordinary way these matters are addressed. The reason is that I view there to be far too much focus on one or another particular program or one amount of money or another "wasted", etc. I am not one to advocate approaches that deal superficially or insubstantially with these matters because treating symptoms while leaving the basis from which any infection can perpetuate is ultimately not going to work. Furthermore, the federal leviathan is in not a few ways akin to the hydra monster of Greek mythology and its perpetuation is based on some problematical presuppositions which (taken together) complicates matters further. I will have to briefly explain the hydra analogy so that I do not lose any readers in making that analogy -for those who already know this can serve as a refresher of sorts.
For those unfamiliar with the mythical hydra, it had many heads and every time one was cut off, two or three would grow back in its place. This is why any attempt to kill the monster could not be by lopping heads off but instead you had to aim at the heart of the beast to kill it. How this relates to the federal leviathan is that cutting one small program here and there or a stray billion or tens of billions in three plus trillion dollar budgets is like cutting off a "head" and you know darn well that others will grow back in its place -usually through that nasty rider approach which I have proposed a solution to before.{1} But that solution has one element that needs to be tended to at the federal level first and at the state level at least in Washington State I was advised that my solution for the most part is already in place.{2} And however laudable that idea is, we are past the point where the time to implement a policy like that can be casually entertained. For as is evident to anyone not hiding under a rock, we have a reckless fiscally irresponsible congress paired with a reckless fiscally irresponsible president.{3}
In dealing with the debt issue, I have an idea for not only balancing the budget but also to pay down the debt over a ten year period.{4} However, now is not the time to go over that proposal -I mention it here only in passing. For as offense wins games, it is defense that wins championships as the sports dictum goes. So before we get to a proactive approach to paying off the debt we have to get the issue of balancing the budget under control. And one way we can obviously not do this is with hoping to elect leaders who will be responsible in this area.
I have long been critical of the fact that the Republicans not only in their leadership have made a mockery of the notion of limited government.{5} However, it goes beyond that and even gets to the point that the seeming "nostalgia" many have for the Gingrich led Congresses also does not deal with the problem we are facing really is. Instead, the Gingrich congresses at best dealt with symptoms instead of causes. But I am about to go over a proposal to deal with causes. There are three things we need to do on this matter and two of them would not be difficult at all. The third is the hard one and that is going to take the greatest courage. But lest I get ahead of myself here, let us touch on the first two briefly before getting to the purpose of this posting.
To start with, the first of the aforementioned proposals is the reinstatement by the congress of presidential impoundment authority: something which no president since Nixon has been able to do.{6} The second of the proposals would be abolishing the notion of what is called "base line budgeting" a subject I do not have time to go over now but one which starts with the presumption that there will be budgetary increases.{7} Readers are aware that I have noted over the years{8} that to control the terms is to control the debate and the moment we let the debate be based on how much or how little a program or the budget is increased is the moment that we have surrendered the principle we are trying to espouse whether we realize this or not. And that brings us to the third proposal; namely the idea I want to set forth in this posting however incompletely: the idea of indefinite budgetary items.
This is an area which I believe the Republicans now that they appear to have found their spine again can make as a point of emphasis. For besides pushing for executive authority to impound funds{9} and going after the notion of "based line budgeting", it is important to deal efficaciously with the noxious idea that federal programs once they are formed are immortal. And the latter is this third area I want to go over in the material before you -a proposal to get at the root and matrix of the federal leviathan program.
I am not sure how exactly it would be implemented for best possible effect mind you but I first mentioned the idea around the same time as my rider reform initiative for the federal government{10} though it first came to my mind even prior to that point. Its origin was in the debates early in President George W. Bush's first term. I remember hearing all this talk about the tax cuts he and the congress implemented not being "permanent" and the legislation called "the Patriot Act"{11} having to be "renewed" before it "sunsetted." When pondering that and also recalling President Ronald Reagan's comment about eternity on earth is most closely realized in a federal program,{12} I found myself thinking "why can we not have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation"??? And why can this principle not be applies to every piece of legislation not only future and present but also from the past??? And that is the idea basically. How it would be implemented is another matter altogether but this would effectively put the entire federal leviathan on watch program by program and make it a requirement for periodical voting by the legislative bodies to retain certain programs or they automatically expire within say ninety days of a failure to extend them.
In such a proposition the bill extension periods could vary but basically something significant needs to be on the docket for potential expiration in every election cycle and if many of the more important programs were due to expire in off term election years this alone would make midterm elections more interesting as a rule. And it would put a stop to the "inevitability" of the federal leviathan growing larger but indeed would put it constantly in a state of potentially getting smaller and it would take the proactive aspect of cutting the size of government out of the equation to a good degree.{13}
Anyway, that is what I am looking at idea-wise though I do not have an idea as to how it would be fashioned in terms of precise legislation but I suppose if I put the idea out there in some form or another that others can propose a variety of ways of going about this. Furthermore, the terms of the debate or "language control" if you will{14} can be re framed in the context of genuine budgetary reductions and not the political shell game we have seen both parties play for far too long now which coupled with a functional template for constitutional interpretation{15} might see us actually make some real progress in arresting this government behemoth which up to now we have not succeeded in doing for want of a proper strategery of doing do in my mind. Once that is tended to, then we can go on offense and talk about paying down the debt but defense first, offense second. The question is, can we find any representatives or senators who would take this as their rallying cry or not??? Inquiring minds wanna know and perhaps we can if they will not put an amendment into the Constitution to do this.
Notes:
{1} The original idea was first set out in some detail in a posting of January 20, 2004 not long after listening to President Bush's State of the Union that year. I then subsequently went about reiterating on more than a few times in subsequent years some of which are linked to this sentence and the most recent of which can be viewed here:
"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept. (circa December 16, 2008)
{2} The original idea was in a federal context but then I remembered we do not have a line item veto for the executive which the absence of that would basically make the idea inoperative. So before that can be approached, a constitutional amendment or some legislative provision to pass Supreme Court muster granting that power would be required. I then turned to the state level knowing that Washington State is one of over 40 states that have the line item veto for their governors. But Bob Williams (one time gubernatorial candidate for Washington State and head of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) informed me that most of my ideas in that note were already part of Washington state law.
{3} And this was not exactly a problem we were without during the presidency of George W. Bush either of course.
{4} I have gone over it before but do not want to get sidetracked here by reiterating it anew.
{5} [P]erhaps the best way to understand why modern Republicans are not Republicans in the true sense of that term -and further, why I am not and for some time have not been a supporter of the Republican Party in any capacity- is to consider how their leaders view their own party today.
The following discussion between Rush Limbaugh and Ed Gillespie is instructive for one key reason: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is absolutely clueless about the principles of limited government!!! Limbaugh granted could be more consistent on this subject than he is, but when the head of the RNC quite clearly has no idea what "limited government" is, that is not a minor bagatelle folks. Let me clarify if for you.
Limited government is not [reducing] the size of the increase, as Gillespie claims. How can one claim to be for "limited government" by arguing that [w]hen Bill Clinton left office, he proposed his last budget was an increase of 15% in non-defense discretionary spending. President Bush came in, he brought it down to 6% in his first budget, down to 5% in his second. It is at 2% today, non-defense discretionary spending??? This is a mockery of the entire notion of limited government.
First of all, who cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded. The following article covers the subject in some detail -certainly better than the laughable Congressional article which tried to make the impounding sound like a novel notion of Nixon's...But it was not. And while there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 31, 2003]
{6} I do not make distinctions between one part of Reagan's philosophy and another XXXXXXX. Instead, I take into account the entire picture and just as the Democratic Party left Reagan in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Republican Party has left behind the principles of Ronald Reagan the man and the president since 1988. The so-called 1994 revolution was a joke because they did almost nothing they promised to do: unlike Reagan who kept most of his promises.
They could not even close down a single federal department!!! That is ridiculous since so much of the federal leviathan as Reagan recognized was patently unconstitutional. They had the control of the congress and thus the legislative ability to make changes including (if necessary) changing the rules of procedure to make it harder for the Democrats to resist. But they did not. Care to go over the "Contract With America" with me point by point and see how much they actually enacted??? That alone makes my case since if anything the contract was a drop in the bucket of what needed (and needs) to be done to combat the unconstitutional federal behemoth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 11, 2004]
{7} I do not have time to go over this right now but Citizens Against Government Waste has a really good explanation which I refer the reader to at this time.
{8} Most recently in this posting:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{9} If anything this proposal with a Democrat in the White House as we have now might have a better chance of being advanced by the Republicans because the potential of it being chalked up to "self-interest" is refuted by the circumstances of a Democrat being in the White House.
{10} Namely in this part:
Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Since then it has probably been mentioned on my weblog at least a dozen odd times when times or circumstances warranted.
{11} The "Patriot Act" is something which I have some reservations to parts of but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{12} I paraphrase The Gipper here.
{13} And while I am not opposed to a national bank in either principle or on constitutional grounds, it bears noting that the first two national banks of the United States both had sunset clauses in them much as most of the Alien and Sedition legislation of 1798 did; ergo the idea of sunset clauses in government legislation is hardly untraditional from a constitutional standpoint even for seemingly "untouchable" programs.
{14} See footnote eight.
{15} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Today would have been the 68th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. As I have noted before, days like this are ones of more intense than normal reflection for me. It seems appropriate to note it here and ask the readers of this weblog if they could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul. (And for those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother -who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this- and the rest of the family would be appreciated.)
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
Points to Ponder:
(On Presidential Hypocrisy and Its Relationship To Double Standards)
The issue of presidents and who really spends the country's money aside for a moment...
I can understand some who want things more irenic but I ask them this:
How did you approach things when GWB was president???
Did you play the "he was not elected" BS??? If so you cannot criticize those who question BHO's eligibility to even be president based on presumably failing to verify that he fits citizenship criteria. (The case against BHO here is significantly more credible than the one against GWB in 2000.)
Did you complain about "violations of free speech" when GWB was president??? If so then if you stand quietly while the party in power moves to silence dissent to a degree that GWB never even came close to doing (with this so-called "Fairness Doctrine") you are being a hypocrite.
Did you criticize deficits when GWB was president??? (I sure as heck did!!!) If you did and try to excuse them with Obama you are being a hypocrite since one year of Obama is more than eight years of Reagan, more than four years of GWB's dad, and more than five of eight years we ran a deficit under Clinton. Etc. [Circa February 27, 2009 @ 9:37am]
(On Presidential Hypocrisy and Its Relationship To Double Standards)
The issue of presidents and who really spends the country's money aside for a moment...
I can understand some who want things more irenic but I ask them this:
How did you approach things when GWB was president???
Did you play the "he was not elected" BS??? If so you cannot criticize those who question BHO's eligibility to even be president based on presumably failing to verify that he fits citizenship criteria. (The case against BHO here is significantly more credible than the one against GWB in 2000.)
Did you complain about "violations of free speech" when GWB was president??? If so then if you stand quietly while the party in power moves to silence dissent to a degree that GWB never even came close to doing (with this so-called "Fairness Doctrine") you are being a hypocrite.
Did you criticize deficits when GWB was president??? (I sure as heck did!!!) If you did and try to excuse them with Obama you are being a hypocrite since one year of Obama is more than eight years of Reagan, more than four years of GWB's dad, and more than five of eight years we ran a deficit under Clinton. Etc. [Circa February 27, 2009 @ 9:37am]
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(With "Crimson Catholic")
[Prefatory Note: The bulk of this was originally written in October of 2008 and finished earlier today -the footnotes needed to be finished and some parts updated since the first draft was put together: I did this in purple font. Anyway, this material is now ready for posting at the present time and in light of a lot of what we are seeing from the present administration and congress could not be more apropo in my mind. -ISM]
I should note in advance that this "Crimson Catholic" is the same "Crimson" I was interacting with last year in 2007 on the subject of appeal to authority.{1} And as I am going to finish in the coming weeks a dialogual thread in the coming weeks with a reader who has intelligently{2} taken issue with one of your host's foundational presuppositions{3} pertaining to how he views a wide variety of subjects be they philosophical, sociological, geopolitical, etc., it seems appropriate to post this short bit from last year. It will serve as a reminder to those who may not be familiar with the subject of fundamental rights -one we have written a lot on in a variety of contexts over the years{4} but not as much recently for various and sundry reasons. Without further ado...
Crimson:
I found these statements by you to be of interest:
The state's role is protection of the common good; outside of this role, the state has no more authority to exercise its power than an individual...
[T]he objection here indicates that Justice Scalia doesn't grasp the argument. He doesn't realize that the state's power to avenge, to vindicate the public order, is yet limited by its own mandate to protect the public good, just as the individual's is limited to his moral duty to protect his own life and the lives of others. That is the argument of Evangelium Vitae.
This rationale looks eerily familiar Crimson. Note...
[C]onsider the theory[...] of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further[...] in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is. And again, let us consider Bastiat's synthesis on that subject before getting to the whole stare decisis issue:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 1, 2007)]
I have made this argument for a long time and have never until now seen it made by any other contemporary Catholics in the blogosphere or anywhere else. I would not be rubbing off on you by chance now would I Crimson???
Notes:
{2} Unlike a lot of people who make pretenses towards dialogue but prefer to only respond to the weakest of arguments from their critics, your host prefers to only interact with intelligent and thought out objections to our viewpoints. This is one reason we do not have comments boxes at this weblog -not to berate those who do but we have our reasons for choosing otherwise and they are substantial ones and we noted this most recently in a posting located here:
Since the bulk of this post was put together in October of 2008, I have revisited this subject in what I believe is a more irenic presentation and recommend this version instead if you only have time to review one of these threads:
As for the threads mentioned in this posting, one of them was completed after this posting was originally drafted and posted here:
The other one as of this posting remains unfinished but I will get to and finish it soon time and motivation-willing.
{3} I explained this once in the heat of polemic in the following way in years past:
[A]s far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.
People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. What interests me is the discipline of the dialogue.
I am willing to consider for engagement on various and sundry issues anyone else who shows a similar concern for what that entails. I am also interested in productive dialogue which means getting beyond the useless back and forth exchanges[...] where no one is willing to put their foundational presuppositions on the line and reapprise them at regular intervals. The latter is a process that by its very nature must involve respecting the faculties of reason and logic. That means one has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]
{4} The last compilation post on this subject was posted in early 2007:
If I have the time in the coming month or two I hope to finish another thread from that point on which was started at some point in 2008 but not finished. But for now that one will have to do even if it does not include two rather significant postings I did on the subjects of fetal stem cell research and abortion as they pertain to said fundamental rights which were on the drafting table when that thread was posted and completed in the weeks afterward. (They will be in the follow up compilation thread when I get around to finishing it but I digress.)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On True and False "Rights")
A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]
(On True and False "Rights")
A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]
On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor:
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Thread)
Saul Alinsky is one of the largest intellectual influences on our president as well as the whole "community organizing" model that President Obama was trained in. He also also ran as president using this approach and therefore will presumably will try to use as president. To give an idea of what this means for Americans, I have put together a series of threads for readers of this humble weblog to review. The thread spans from March 25, 2007 to October 22, 2008. I do not necessarily agree with the views of the threads below but have included a cross-section to give a balanced approach to the subject of Saul Alinsky and what he was really about. Without further ado...
For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (circa March 25, 2007)
Obama in Chicago: portrait of a pragmatist (circa April 3, 2007)
[Deval] Patrick, [Barack] Obama campaigns share language of 'hope' (circa April 16, 2007)
Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis (circa May 19, 2007)
While then-college student Hillary Rodham wrote her thesis, she met Saul Alinsky and interviewed him. She however could not have known in 1969 that Saul Alinsky would write a manifesto of sorts in 1971 called Rules For Radicals that he would dedicate "[t]o Lucifer, the first radical." Young Barack Obama on the other hand having been privy to such a book does not have the same excuse. Moving on...
Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (circa May 21, 2007)
"Ruthless" For Obama (circa September 4, 2007)
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu (circa January 8, 2008)
Alinsky, Clinton, Obama (circa January 10, 2008)
In the above bit, a reader of the site's writer supporting Obama talked about how Clinton and Obama differed as it pertains to Alinsky.
Hillary Hardball vs. Barack Softball: Is there a Genuine Difference? (circa March 7, 2008)
Alinsky, Governance, Democracy, Obama (circa April 6, 2008)
The above one lists Alinsky's "Thirteen Rules" making it a must read in my view for that reason alone. Sod that, I will post the thirteen rules from Rules For Radicals to this humble weblog in the coming week. Moving on...
Saul Alinsky -Yet Another Obama Mentor From His Marxist Past (circa May 17, 2008)
WANTED: An Honest Journalist That Will Investigate B. Hussein Obama (circa July 2, 2008)
Michelle Obama Used Lines From Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules For Radicals" In Last Night's Speech (circa August 26, 2008)
Saul Alinsky's Son: "Obama Learned His Lesson Well" (circa September 2, 2008)
Obama, His Mentor Saul Akinsky, and the Relationship Between "Community Organizer" and Marxism (circa September 10, 2008)
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard (circa September 24, 2008)
GARRETT: What Obama picked up from Saul Alinsky's playbook (circa October 22, 2008)
Readers who review the above threads and take into account your host's view of marxism{1} will well realize why I viewed posting a thread like this to be necessary so that those who want to combat what this president is going to try can familiarize themselves with one of his chief tactical influences.
Note:
{1} Here are just a few of the threads from this weblog's archives on marxism in order from oldest to most recent so our view of the matter is discernible without the slightest shade of ambiguity:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
On Reminding Readers of the Significance of "May Day" (circa May 1, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting (circa June 18, 2008)
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Thread)
Saul Alinsky is one of the largest intellectual influences on our president as well as the whole "community organizing" model that President Obama was trained in. He also also ran as president using this approach and therefore will presumably will try to use as president. To give an idea of what this means for Americans, I have put together a series of threads for readers of this humble weblog to review. The thread spans from March 25, 2007 to October 22, 2008. I do not necessarily agree with the views of the threads below but have included a cross-section to give a balanced approach to the subject of Saul Alinsky and what he was really about. Without further ado...
For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (circa March 25, 2007)
Obama in Chicago: portrait of a pragmatist (circa April 3, 2007)
[Deval] Patrick, [Barack] Obama campaigns share language of 'hope' (circa April 16, 2007)
Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis (circa May 19, 2007)
While then-college student Hillary Rodham wrote her thesis, she met Saul Alinsky and interviewed him. She however could not have known in 1969 that Saul Alinsky would write a manifesto of sorts in 1971 called Rules For Radicals that he would dedicate "[t]o Lucifer, the first radical." Young Barack Obama on the other hand having been privy to such a book does not have the same excuse. Moving on...
Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (circa May 21, 2007)
"Ruthless" For Obama (circa September 4, 2007)
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu (circa January 8, 2008)
Alinsky, Clinton, Obama (circa January 10, 2008)
In the above bit, a reader of the site's writer supporting Obama talked about how Clinton and Obama differed as it pertains to Alinsky.
Hillary Hardball vs. Barack Softball: Is there a Genuine Difference? (circa March 7, 2008)
Alinsky, Governance, Democracy, Obama (circa April 6, 2008)
The above one lists Alinsky's "Thirteen Rules" making it a must read in my view for that reason alone. Sod that, I will post the thirteen rules from Rules For Radicals to this humble weblog in the coming week. Moving on...
Saul Alinsky -Yet Another Obama Mentor From His Marxist Past (circa May 17, 2008)
WANTED: An Honest Journalist That Will Investigate B. Hussein Obama (circa July 2, 2008)
Michelle Obama Used Lines From Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules For Radicals" In Last Night's Speech (circa August 26, 2008)
Saul Alinsky's Son: "Obama Learned His Lesson Well" (circa September 2, 2008)
Obama, His Mentor Saul Akinsky, and the Relationship Between "Community Organizer" and Marxism (circa September 10, 2008)
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard (circa September 24, 2008)
GARRETT: What Obama picked up from Saul Alinsky's playbook (circa October 22, 2008)
Readers who review the above threads and take into account your host's view of marxism{1} will well realize why I viewed posting a thread like this to be necessary so that those who want to combat what this president is going to try can familiarize themselves with one of his chief tactical influences.
Note:
{1} Here are just a few of the threads from this weblog's archives on marxism in order from oldest to most recent so our view of the matter is discernible without the slightest shade of ambiguity:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
On Reminding Readers of the Significance of "May Day" (circa May 1, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting (circa June 18, 2008)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Clarifying Ourselves on a Previous Point:
The purpose of posting today is to touch on a point in the following thread outlining the actions being taken by a soldier of the United States Military:
The crux of the above article can be summarized in the subheading of the article itself, namely this:
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'
It seems appropriate to your humble host to clarify something he said back in December when writing on the election aftermath. Among the many points covered in that rather expansive expository musing{1} was the part about questioning the verdict of the election. My words on that subject were as follows:
There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.
Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.
Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}
The tenth footnote from that posting read as follows:
Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.
As the footnote noted, I did not put much thought into the approach being noted above but from a practical standpoint I did not see much value in this approach. However, I also did not take into consideration the phenomenon noted above concerning a soldier's pledged oath to the Constitution and what that involved. So having that factor brought into the equation, it changes a tad bit what I said previously so allow me to clarify my view on the matter further at this time.
Essentially, while I reaffirm my previous statement on the matter, I want to remove the appearance of an absolute statement on the matter and declare it to be a statement involving a general norm. I do not see for example how those who are bound by Constitutional oaths should be forced to go against their conscience if the latter really is a factor in the matter. However, those who would do so should have a degree of moral certainty that enables them to fulfill that function. And that means that for those sworn to follow the president should have a degree of moral certainty that the person they are following is actually the president. Ordinarily an election would suffice to supply this but in the case of both parties in the last election, they were born in extraordinary circumstances. However, Senator John McCain still fit the criteria under the Constitution to be president and the US Senate even went so far as to declare his meeting of this criteria in an official resolution. The same was not done for President Obama when he was running for the office.{2}
The bottom line is this really: if then-senator and now President Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he and his supporters claim, than what is wrong with releasing the original birth certificate for review. If there is one, this is the fastest way to end the controversy and do so decisively. The stubborn refusal of President Obama and others to do this is at the very least profoundly suspicious. And for that reason and in light of what this soldier has sworn under the Constitution to uphold, I cannot blame him for wanting proof of the legitimacy of the office holder to whom he is expected to obey in life and death situations.
Notes:
Friday, February 20, 2009
Rahm Emmanuel Has His Own Tax Problems
I have already predicted that the Blagovich scandal is going to come back and bite Rahm Emmanuel in the butt but yet another issue that the msm if they had done even remedial journalistic investigation in the 2008 election on then-candidate Obama and his associates would have uncovered.{1} But they did not and now we are forced to see yet another public figure who preaches on being "transparent" and "ethical" and all who does not practice what they preach{2}: a sad but growing trend in modern society in not a few manifestations thereof but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Heck, if they had doneat least a tenth of the "investigation" they did into the wardrobe ingredients of Governor Sarah Palin they would have discovered this.
{2} This is a problem that not a few who are apologists for different agendas have and often in spades I might add.
I have already predicted that the Blagovich scandal is going to come back and bite Rahm Emmanuel in the butt but yet another issue that the msm if they had done even remedial journalistic investigation in the 2008 election on then-candidate Obama and his associates would have uncovered.{1} But they did not and now we are forced to see yet another public figure who preaches on being "transparent" and "ethical" and all who does not practice what they preach{2}: a sad but growing trend in modern society in not a few manifestations thereof but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Heck, if they had doneat least a tenth of the "investigation" they did into the wardrobe ingredients of Governor Sarah Palin they would have discovered this.
{2} This is a problem that not a few who are apologists for different agendas have and often in spades I might add.
Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no
Like we need economists to tell us that the so-called "stimulus" will not work; heck, any casual perusal of the text will make it evident that at a minimum 75% of it is complete waste and political payoff that will not do a single thing whatsoever to aid in the creation of actual jobs. And I say that figure to be generous towards President Obama.
Considering how often there were bits and pieces stuck into this package that had no bearing whatsoever towards what the claim of the bill was, it seems an opportune moment to remind readers of the rider reform proposal that we drafted five years ago and revisited back in December of 2008. Tim Eyman in the state of Washington will be getting that material to make into an Initiative that hopefully will be ready for the state ballot in 2010. In the meantime, I need to get going on a second idea for even more radical legislative reform that has been in my mind at least as long as that one and though mentioned often has not been set out in schematic form yet. That is a goal I have to complete before the month of March this year.
Like we need economists to tell us that the so-called "stimulus" will not work; heck, any casual perusal of the text will make it evident that at a minimum 75% of it is complete waste and political payoff that will not do a single thing whatsoever to aid in the creation of actual jobs. And I say that figure to be generous towards President Obama.
Considering how often there were bits and pieces stuck into this package that had no bearing whatsoever towards what the claim of the bill was, it seems an opportune moment to remind readers of the rider reform proposal that we drafted five years ago and revisited back in December of 2008. Tim Eyman in the state of Washington will be getting that material to make into an Initiative that hopefully will be ready for the state ballot in 2010. In the meantime, I need to get going on a second idea for even more radical legislative reform that has been in my mind at least as long as that one and though mentioned often has not been set out in schematic form yet. That is a goal I have to complete before the month of March this year.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Griffey Chooses Mariners
To post some off the cuff comments I made on this matter in another medium when someone asked me about whether I wanted Alex Rodriguez -a player I put a curse on back in 2001{1}- back with the Mariners...
I basically do not want A-Rod back because that he lied about the money, then cheated by using steroids, and then cheated on his wife basically that is three strikes. But even if we do excuse these things, I do not see that he is a very good teammate and to me that is important because chemistry on a team is important -A-Rod was a good teammate once but then it became all about him.
I prefer a player who is not selfish, a team player, one who inspires his teammates on the field and is a positive force of clubhouse cohesion off of it. I prefer a player who has faced genuine adversity to thereby know how when opportunity arrives to take advantage of it. I also want a player who is humble. For those reasons and more, I am very pleased to see Griffey return because first of all, he still can play the game, second of all, he is not gonna hit 50 and bat .315 anymore but I can see in a stadium built for his swing and running on the adrenaline of fan support a season of up to 40 HR's, 110 RBI's and a .290 odd average. All he needs is five healthy seasons at DH averaging 31 home runs and he will vindicate Aaron's record from the slime of Bonds. He also returns home today and we owe for this the influence of the second greatest player in baseball history and a living legend himself: one Willie Mays. [Excerpt from a Morning Correspondence circa February 19, 2009 @ 8:14am]
I say "second greatest player in history" because there really is no rational argument against my statement that the greatest of all time in baseball is the Big Bam himself for reasons I will relegated briefly to a footnote in this posting.{2} But I am pleased to see Ken Griffey Jr. back in Seattle and give a shout out to the great one Willie "Say Hey" Mays for being the deal cincher on this matter -someone who exuded class on and off the field unlike his godson whose name I shall not mention at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who did not remember this, I mentioned back in 2004 in a variety of mediums (including on this blog) my curse on A-Rod and what it involved and reiterated the contents of it earlier this month after news of A-Rod taking steroids came out.
{2} I went over this in some detail here:
On Baseball, Recent Milestones, Etc. (circa October 6, 2007)
In essence, I do not view this matter as debatable basically.
To post some off the cuff comments I made on this matter in another medium when someone asked me about whether I wanted Alex Rodriguez -a player I put a curse on back in 2001{1}- back with the Mariners...
I basically do not want A-Rod back because that he lied about the money, then cheated by using steroids, and then cheated on his wife basically that is three strikes. But even if we do excuse these things, I do not see that he is a very good teammate and to me that is important because chemistry on a team is important -A-Rod was a good teammate once but then it became all about him.
I prefer a player who is not selfish, a team player, one who inspires his teammates on the field and is a positive force of clubhouse cohesion off of it. I prefer a player who has faced genuine adversity to thereby know how when opportunity arrives to take advantage of it. I also want a player who is humble. For those reasons and more, I am very pleased to see Griffey return because first of all, he still can play the game, second of all, he is not gonna hit 50 and bat .315 anymore but I can see in a stadium built for his swing and running on the adrenaline of fan support a season of up to 40 HR's, 110 RBI's and a .290 odd average. All he needs is five healthy seasons at DH averaging 31 home runs and he will vindicate Aaron's record from the slime of Bonds. He also returns home today and we owe for this the influence of the second greatest player in baseball history and a living legend himself: one Willie Mays. [Excerpt from a Morning Correspondence circa February 19, 2009 @ 8:14am]
I say "second greatest player in history" because there really is no rational argument against my statement that the greatest of all time in baseball is the Big Bam himself for reasons I will relegated briefly to a footnote in this posting.{2} But I am pleased to see Ken Griffey Jr. back in Seattle and give a shout out to the great one Willie "Say Hey" Mays for being the deal cincher on this matter -someone who exuded class on and off the field unlike his godson whose name I shall not mention at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who did not remember this, I mentioned back in 2004 in a variety of mediums (including on this blog) my curse on A-Rod and what it involved and reiterated the contents of it earlier this month after news of A-Rod taking steroids came out.
{2} I went over this in some detail here:
On Baseball, Recent Milestones, Etc. (circa October 6, 2007)
In essence, I do not view this matter as debatable basically.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On Historical Airbrushing and Memory)
[I]t is pretty convenient to revise history when one person deletes all their stuff and reconstructs it from their memory. To put it charitably, the mind has an uncanny tendency to invent memories that serve its own ego. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa January 18, 2009)]
(On Historical Airbrushing and Memory)
[I]t is pretty convenient to revise history when one person deletes all their stuff and reconstructs it from their memory. To put it charitably, the mind has an uncanny tendency to invent memories that serve its own ego. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa January 18, 2009)]
On the Recent Controversy of the Reinstatement of the SSPX's Bishops in General and of Bishop Richard Williamson in Particular:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This text was substantially written on February 4, 2009 with a few final touches being put on it before this posting today. -ISM]
Considering my history of writing on matters pertaining to the SSPX in past years, those who are familiar with my stuff from back then may find my public silence on this matter to be odd. I should note first that the subject is one that bored me to tears many years ago because many of the points of reference were so open and shut that arguing with those who claimed otherwise was akin to arguing about the historical reality of the moonwalk or of the Holocaust.
Suffice to say, the recent developments in that saga seem to be apropo to go over here of which I will use some of my private correspondence to deal with to set the stage for what is to follow. I must admit that the latest announcement of the possibly move by the Vatican to do what it eventually did was met with skepticism by myself and another longtime friend who also has written on these issues. But when news came down that it was not a mere rumour this time, I dashed off this short note to those who included me on an email circular where the matter was being discussed:
Well for once the rumour was true.
We shall see how long this takes place cause [Bishop] Wiliamson will have to play nice and if he does not, will [Bishop] Fellay discipline or expel him? We shall see...[Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 24, 2009 @10:05am)]
When pressed further for some additional information on the matter, I included this bit for consideration:
Basically there has long been a split amongst the bishops of the SSPX. You have [Bishops] Fellay de Galaretta on one side who are more moderate and willing to try to find an accommodation that is consonent within certain parameters, you have [Bishop] Williamson who is basically a tinfoil wearing whackjob and I say this as someone who had a number of conversations personally with him in years past (read: pre-2000 -he is a nice guy personally of the sort you could talk amicably with over coffee but has some very weird views basically). Then [Bishop] Tissier de Mallerais is sorta a freelance sort who aligns closer to Williamson and is more of an uncertain one. The point is, there is not unanimity with the bishops on any one policy or view and Fellay though personally more sympathrtic all along with a Rome accommodation also as district superior needed to speak for the group as much as himself personally.
But speaking as a former chapel attender where Williamson was an occasionally the celebret and where there were some who were very out there on many issues most of the attendees are average people who did not seem to buy into the extremism. The kooks were a very vocal and rather forceful minority basically. I am not sure if that was the same all over but at the very least it would seem to represent the norm -though we had Fr. Christopher Hunter as pastor in my tenure (he is now in Veneta Oregon) who was both one of the most easygoing and moderate of the sspx pastors (not to mention being very intelligent: he and I had some wonderful conversations on everything from Thomism to Vatican II to the whole Davis vs. Armstrong debate in jazz). My guess is Williamson will become a lone ranger and de Mallerais despite sympathies will be drawn int the orbit with Fellay and de Galaretta. [Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 24, 2009 @9:47pm)]
Later in the week, I heard that one of my questions was answered when Fellay moved against Williamson to try and silence him. My note to the aforementioned group was as follows:
It is nice to see that Fellay has taken this step:
http://www.zenit.org/article-24930?l=english
It shows that he and the others are serious about this. The question is what happens when Williamson does not stay silent if that happens? But as for now, it looks good. [Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 28, 2009 @6:05am)]
Well I did not figure that would end the matter but little did I suspect that it would develop into what it has with Pope Benedict XVI receiving a lot of criticism for this decision. First we have the pope's brother taking on German Chancellor Angela Merkel:
Father Georg Ratzinger vs. Chancellor Angela Merkel
Then there is the usual suspects from the kook opposite fringe calling for Pope Benedict XVI to step down along with understandable hurt by Jewish groups as well diplomatic stances taken by senior Vatican diplomats such as Cardinal Walter Kasper -all of which is touched on here:
Call for pope to step down over Holocaust denier
Finally, we have the pope himself not only denouncing the position taken by Bishop Williamson but also requiring that he denounce the position himself to be restored to his functions as a bishop:
Holy Father "firmly rejects" Bishop's unacceptable theories
The bottom line as I see it is that this can only help the SSPX long term because there has been an undercurrent of this kind of tinfoil hat wearing kook conspiracy theorizing practically since the very beginning and it has only gotten worse with time. It is one thing for a group like this which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church to have its authority figures talk in this fashion and it is another when the path to restoring their communion through the lifting of the excommunication incurred for the schismatic act of episcopal consecration contrary to the express consent of the Pope{1} brings this stuff to the surface from where it was long submerged.
Some positive steps have been made in the direction of mending this tear in the ecclesial cloak, some obstacles still exist{2}, etc. But the bottom line is, poisons such as those can only be expelled when they are recognized for what they are and a public airing out of them is made. Nothing positive comes from burying one's head in the sand and pretending that serious problems{3} do not exist when they do. Would that more people recognize this principle both in general as well as in particular circumstances which they do not care to talk about but I digress.
Notes:
{1} The prior claims of the SSPX that they were never in schism or that the excommunications were not valid were refuted in detail by this writer nearly ten years ago. It is moot to revisit them now but I note this here anticipating what some who take pleasure in this event coming to pass will attempt to claim. (We do not endorse airbrushing the historical record here at Rerum Novarum either ourselves personally or by others who would do so whatever their intentions for doing so may be.)
{2} The claims of the SSPX that the Pope in his motu proprio restoring the full privileges of the use of the older form of the Roman Missal in doing so supported their long enunciated views on the matter is at best a half truth (to put it nicely). I do not intend barring a specific request to do so (and also being in the mood to do so) go into this matter again having done so in years past.
{3} And yes, Holocaust denial is a denial of actual history and therefore a grave offense against the truth.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This text was substantially written on February 4, 2009 with a few final touches being put on it before this posting today. -ISM]
Considering my history of writing on matters pertaining to the SSPX in past years, those who are familiar with my stuff from back then may find my public silence on this matter to be odd. I should note first that the subject is one that bored me to tears many years ago because many of the points of reference were so open and shut that arguing with those who claimed otherwise was akin to arguing about the historical reality of the moonwalk or of the Holocaust.
Suffice to say, the recent developments in that saga seem to be apropo to go over here of which I will use some of my private correspondence to deal with to set the stage for what is to follow. I must admit that the latest announcement of the possibly move by the Vatican to do what it eventually did was met with skepticism by myself and another longtime friend who also has written on these issues. But when news came down that it was not a mere rumour this time, I dashed off this short note to those who included me on an email circular where the matter was being discussed:
Well for once the rumour was true.
We shall see how long this takes place cause [Bishop] Wiliamson will have to play nice and if he does not, will [Bishop] Fellay discipline or expel him? We shall see...[Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 24, 2009 @10:05am)]
When pressed further for some additional information on the matter, I included this bit for consideration:
Basically there has long been a split amongst the bishops of the SSPX. You have [Bishops] Fellay de Galaretta on one side who are more moderate and willing to try to find an accommodation that is consonent within certain parameters, you have [Bishop] Williamson who is basically a tinfoil wearing whackjob and I say this as someone who had a number of conversations personally with him in years past (read: pre-2000 -he is a nice guy personally of the sort you could talk amicably with over coffee but has some very weird views basically). Then [Bishop] Tissier de Mallerais is sorta a freelance sort who aligns closer to Williamson and is more of an uncertain one. The point is, there is not unanimity with the bishops on any one policy or view and Fellay though personally more sympathrtic all along with a Rome accommodation also as district superior needed to speak for the group as much as himself personally.
But speaking as a former chapel attender where Williamson was an occasionally the celebret and where there were some who were very out there on many issues most of the attendees are average people who did not seem to buy into the extremism. The kooks were a very vocal and rather forceful minority basically. I am not sure if that was the same all over but at the very least it would seem to represent the norm -though we had Fr. Christopher Hunter as pastor in my tenure (he is now in Veneta Oregon) who was both one of the most easygoing and moderate of the sspx pastors (not to mention being very intelligent: he and I had some wonderful conversations on everything from Thomism to Vatican II to the whole Davis vs. Armstrong debate in jazz). My guess is Williamson will become a lone ranger and de Mallerais despite sympathies will be drawn int the orbit with Fellay and de Galaretta. [Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 24, 2009 @9:47pm)]
Later in the week, I heard that one of my questions was answered when Fellay moved against Williamson to try and silence him. My note to the aforementioned group was as follows:
It is nice to see that Fellay has taken this step:
http://www.zenit.org/article-
It shows that he and the others are serious about this. The question is what happens when Williamson does not stay silent if that happens? But as for now, it looks good. [Excerpt from an Email Circular (circa January 28, 2009 @6:05am)]
Well I did not figure that would end the matter but little did I suspect that it would develop into what it has with Pope Benedict XVI receiving a lot of criticism for this decision. First we have the pope's brother taking on German Chancellor Angela Merkel:
Father Georg Ratzinger vs. Chancellor Angela Merkel
Then there is the usual suspects from the kook opposite fringe calling for Pope Benedict XVI to step down along with understandable hurt by Jewish groups as well diplomatic stances taken by senior Vatican diplomats such as Cardinal Walter Kasper -all of which is touched on here:
Call for pope to step down over Holocaust denier
Finally, we have the pope himself not only denouncing the position taken by Bishop Williamson but also requiring that he denounce the position himself to be restored to his functions as a bishop:
Holy Father "firmly rejects" Bishop's unacceptable theories
The bottom line as I see it is that this can only help the SSPX long term because there has been an undercurrent of this kind of tinfoil hat wearing kook conspiracy theorizing practically since the very beginning and it has only gotten worse with time. It is one thing for a group like this which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church to have its authority figures talk in this fashion and it is another when the path to restoring their communion through the lifting of the excommunication incurred for the schismatic act of episcopal consecration contrary to the express consent of the Pope{1} brings this stuff to the surface from where it was long submerged.
Some positive steps have been made in the direction of mending this tear in the ecclesial cloak, some obstacles still exist{2}, etc. But the bottom line is, poisons such as those can only be expelled when they are recognized for what they are and a public airing out of them is made. Nothing positive comes from burying one's head in the sand and pretending that serious problems{3} do not exist when they do. Would that more people recognize this principle both in general as well as in particular circumstances which they do not care to talk about but I digress.
Notes:
{1} The prior claims of the SSPX that they were never in schism or that the excommunications were not valid were refuted in detail by this writer nearly ten years ago. It is moot to revisit them now but I note this here anticipating what some who take pleasure in this event coming to pass will attempt to claim. (We do not endorse airbrushing the historical record here at Rerum Novarum either ourselves personally or by others who would do so whatever their intentions for doing so may be.)
{2} The claims of the SSPX that the Pope in his motu proprio restoring the full privileges of the use of the older form of the Roman Missal in doing so supported their long enunciated views on the matter is at best a half truth (to put it nicely). I do not intend barring a specific request to do so (and also being in the mood to do so) go into this matter again having done so in years past.
{3} And yes, Holocaust denial is a denial of actual history and therefore a grave offense against the truth.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Our Curse on Alex Rodriguez (aka "A Fraud") Continues!!!
More on this as things unfold perhaps and after I find in the archives where I have discussed this curse and what it entails.
More on this as things unfold perhaps and after I find in the archives where I have discussed this curse and what it entails.
Points to Ponder:
(On Economic "Stimulus")
The way I see it, if they want to credibly claim this stimulus will work then cut it down to the 5% that actually will affect economic improvement, re institute the down payment assistance programs that Congress and President Bush in their "infinite wisdom" canceled out last year, and present that as their package. I doubt they would get much opposition to that but this thing they are trying to push is 95% backroom political paybacks that will not accomplish anything except add to the debt and increase federal power when the latter has not shown historically that they can handle economic matters very well historically. Nothing will fix the housing issue faster than re instituting down payment assistance programs. [Excerpt from a Thread Circular (circa February 6, 2009)]
(On Economic "Stimulus")
The way I see it, if they want to credibly claim this stimulus will work then cut it down to the 5% that actually will affect economic improvement, re institute the down payment assistance programs that Congress and President Bush in their "infinite wisdom" canceled out last year, and present that as their package. I doubt they would get much opposition to that but this thing they are trying to push is 95% backroom political paybacks that will not accomplish anything except add to the debt and increase federal power when the latter has not shown historically that they can handle economic matters very well historically. Nothing will fix the housing issue faster than re instituting down payment assistance programs. [Excerpt from a Thread Circular (circa February 6, 2009)]
Friday, February 06, 2009
Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This text was largely drafted and refined between April 10, 2007 and December 30, 2007 with a few finishing bits (including a couple of footnotes and some minor tweaking) being done in the past month and a half and a final retouching this morning. -ISM]
"A conservatism that cannot find room in its folds for the actualities is a conservatism that is not a political force, or even a twitch: it has become a literary whimsy." [William F. Buckley Jr. (circa 1967)]
In writing on the 2008 Presidential race and various and sundry subjects connected therein{1}, it seemed opportune to address a major problem I have previously mentioned. Many who consider themselves "conservatives" have a problem presenting a coherent, workable, and historically sound model for effective governance. I will include some mention of those conservatives' ideological foes and I will assess both groups using the criteria in which all matters political, social, economic and moral must be viewed by Americans who recognize the role of law in a just society.{2}
Unfortunately, part of the reason for the political division we see in America today is a skewed conception of these matters that has come about for a variety of reasons both historical as well as circumstantial. The purpose of this posting is to explain these as well as note what is lacking in modern politics to counteract the extremes. But to best understand this, I want to address the nation's founding and assess the original political and ideological divisions to better understand what has subsequently happened.
Political parties did not exist in the United States before July 4, 1776 or thereafter. The reason was because the nation was at war with the mightiest empire of its time and trying to do what no nation had ever succeeded in doing before: to throw off the shackles of colonial rule for reasons based on principles of human dignity and the rights pertaining thereof rather than mean self interests. Although these principles were not always followed with crystal consistency (as the whole issue of slavery exemplifies{3}), they must be examined even in passing when it comes to the heart of any governmental arrangement.
The political climate as we have seen it in recent decades has worsened to the point to where amicable discourse is seemingly not possible anymore.{4} This in and of itself is not a problem per se because even in the earliest days of the republic, people disagreed passionately on issues. The difference is the party system to some extent. Most people do not realize that political parties were not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution; back then, even political enemies among the Founders generally assumed that those in positions of leadership (whatever their views) were acting in good will and in accordance with what they believed to be the best interests of the United States. Parties originally did not exist. This explains why the first President of the United States (one General George Washington) was elected unanimously for two terms.
But even when the party system developed over time, a conscious attempt to focus and achieve the interests of the common good dominated most of the age of this nation's history. However, the Democratic Party has gotten away from this understanding in recent decades, as have many in the Republican Party. Concern for the common good gave way to putting selfish personal interests first and that is what the problem we see today is in spades: opposing personal interest groups more interested in their selfish whims than in what is good for the nation as a whole. And with many of these people, they do not care if something is allowed under the Constitution or not, they simply try and take it and do not give a damn while blaming others for doing the same thing. This is the problem of "unconstitutionality" which I refer to in the title of this post.
A reaction of sorts to this prevailing attitude has become fashionable by some who call themselves "conservatives" who at the very least appeal to the Constitution on sundry and divers matters. However, history shows that their approach does not work. I will provide a few examples to illustrate this principle lest readers think I am merely asserting it without being able to supply any proofs.
At the dawn of the republic, rival factions developed different ways to view the Constitution. Its defenders explained the Constitution to the public through The Federalist Papers, and it is to that understanding that we must turn. But there must be some standard. Or as we noted back in 2007 when extending anew our previous offer to "evolving constitution" sorts to play a game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em" for money (an offer which in four years no one has yet taken us up on):
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
Here are the footnotes from the above posting:
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
The bottom line is that the Constitution needs to be a fixed point of reference for law . Early struggles were over how this was interpreted. Alexander Hamilton was the great Defender of the Constitution both in his actions to secure ratification as well as his authoring of approximately 60% or more of The Federalist Papers. James Madison has often been called "the Father of the Constitution" due to his role in the drafting of the Constitution as well as his singular authorship of the later Bill of Rights and a third of the texts from The Federalist.{5} Both of them wrote on the importance of implied powers as a requirement for the government to function. Hamilton's stance on this was firm and never wavered while the same cannot be said for Madison who in 1788 explained the principle of implied powers thusly in Federalist #44 -a paper generally attributed{6} to him:
No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. [James Madison: The Federalist #44 (circa 1788).]
Not long after Madison penned those words, he came to oppose Alexander Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States. Hamilton defended the charter of the first Bank of the United States on the above principle while Madison opposed it as lacking explicit Constitutional grant. And it is at that point that we need to consider the branch of Constitutional interpretation which is promoted by many who call themselves "conservatives" today -particularly those of a libertarian stripe.
Hamilton and Madison appealed to President George Washington who requested from both of them arguments for their positions. Washington while an intelligent man was not the intellectual that Hamilton and Madison were and he did not hesitate to seek counsel to help him make a decision. Washington also asked each man to explain their position in a fashion which he could use should he decide in their favour. Madison's stance was to the point; namely that there was no explicit wording in the Constitution to support the idea of a national bank. Hamilton took the approach that the federal government had the authority as a sovereign power to employ whatever means were necessary to exercise the enumerated powers as long as the means utilized were neither (i) expressly prohibited by the Constitution itself, (ii) immoral, or (iii) contrary to other constitutional principles. Readers will notice a similarity in Hamilton's arguments to Washington with those of Madison in The Federalist. And ultimately, Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the charter of the first Bank of the United States into law with a twenty year sunset date.
Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the bank charter on a fundamentalist reading of the Constitution of the very sort that more "conservative" sorts today often appeal to. But history showed them that this was not workable. Jefferson as president was approached by Napoleon in 1803 to buy the Louisiana territory from him but could not square this offer with the very interpretation of the Constitution that he and Madison had taken in opposition to Hamilton and Washington twelve years earlier. Ultimately after conferring with Madison, Jefferson went ahead with the purchase anyway and proved that when the rubber meets the road, his strict interpretation of the Constitution was not tenable.
In Madison's case, his about-face from the Federalist principle he so astutely penned in 1788 was even more costly. Succeeding Jefferson in the presidency in 1809, Madison knew that the charter of the first Bank of the United States he bitterly opposed in 1791 was due to expire in 1811 and he fought every attempt to recharter it. After the bank charter expired, Madison found himself in a war with England which had been years in the making essentially{7} and in what would be a constant refrain due to the sad unwillingness to learn from history{8}, the military was drastically downsized after a major war only to be ill-equipped when it was necessary to resort to arms again.
As a result, President Madison had an ill-equipped military in disarray, the magnificent navy started under President Washington and expanded under President Adams was decimated under the tenure of President Jefferson. Madison thus had virtually no army or navy, no source to fund a war with the demise of the bank charter, a Congress that had declared war against the most powerful empire in the world, and that empire about to try and reconquer America. Fortunately, the United States won that war.{9} Afterward, Madison fought to recharter the Bank of the United States and this was achieved in 1817. He had realized through experience and numerous embarrassments that the strict fundamentalist reading of the Constitution was not tenable. Let us now transpose these models into modern parlance so that readers can see the current political picture with greater clarity.
There are at bottom three approaches to take on the matter of the government intervention. There is the unconstitutional such as Democrats and those who want federal intervention everywhere and anywhere to fit their pet subjects without concern for the Constitution or any attempt to square their view with what the law of the land actually is. Then there is the unworkable such as Ron Paul sorts whose approach to the constitution has historically not worked and (if adhered to) would have first lost the United States the greatest land acquisition in its history followed by a loss to England in the War of 1812 if Madison had (among other things) ignored the enforcement of a provision he and Jefferson fought against during the Undeclared War of 1798.{10} But in both cases, the strict approach to the Constitution proved that it did not work with Madison learning through experience that his stance as enunciated in Federalist #44 was correct not only abstractly but also in reality.
The path between the unconstitutional weltanchauung of the liberal so-called "progressives" and the unworkable approach advocated by the Ron Pauls and Tom Tancredos of the world is one which recognizes both explicit grants of authority in the Constitution but also implicit ones which are logically required for the explicit ones to be actually carried out provided that they conform to the three points noted above. The key here is what is "required." In the examples already given, Hamilton pushed for the central bank arguing that the Constitution gave the government power over coining money and regulating exchange but did not say how this was to be done. Hamilton reasoned that the bank therefore was needed to carry out the explicit mandate of the Constitution on coining money and regulating exchange. This is one example of recognizing a necessary implied power.
The example with President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase was that the president had the authority with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties with foreign powers. In order to execute a treaty with Napoleon for Louisiana, President Jefferson needed to have the authority to buy the land. Jefferson went to the Congress, which authorized the purchase to enable Jefferson to carry out the treaty making power he was vested with in the Constitution. This is another example of a required implied power to carry out explicit Constitutionally delegated powers.{11} And of course the myriad of times the president has used the armed forces without an explicit declaration of war going back to President Washington{12} is another example of legitimate implied powers{13} being utilized.
It has long been my position that we need a third way in politics -this is something that I knew intuitively even when I had not explicitly worked out all the details of how it would be done. I have even supported variations of a third party in the past with the idea that the third party would have to take time to be built up to be a competing force politically and be well organized on Constitutional principles first lest it go the way of all third parties historically. But ultimately, if the sort of third way I outline above could be achieved in one of the major parties, then I would have no problem giving that party the sort of political loyalty I would like to give a political party. Until that happens, I cannot and will not be affiliated with any political party until support for the Constitution is shown to be a reality and not merely a bunch of rhetoric thrown about during election seasons with nothing tangible in reality being done in the halls of government about it.{14}
For there is a serious lacuna in general goodwill between people of various viewpoints coupled with an inability to amicably discuss principles without viewing those who do not agree with them as either sinister, evil, or some other caricature. I believe this is inevitable in a society where reason and logic are not properly valued and (sadly enough) that has been the case for a long time now. The latter, though, ranges beyond the scope of this post to adequately deal with but it deserves at least a brief mention in passing.
[Dedicated to the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan]
Notes:
{1} Unlike a lot of commentators, your host did not expect to do much in this area before the proximity of the 2007 elections (read: until after Labour Day) and indeed that proved to be the case.
{2} Though longtime readers of this humble weblog may expect an explicit reference to the theory of Claude Frederic Bastiat at some point, I refer only implicitly to that but explicitly in this context to the founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States respectively.
{3} The problem was that slavery as an institution or system was well entrenched in America. I explain the context of this factor as it pertained to the Founding Fathers and the diversity of their views on the matter here for those who are interested:
On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)
{4} We live in a divisive 24/7 media culture and the perception has been created that one cannot have principled disagreements with someone else on issues without one side being somehow degraded. Obviously I have a passion for many issues but I am nonetheless aware that there are people who disagree with me on some/many/most/all things. I do not lose sleep over this because of a belief I have that ultimately what is true will have lasting efficacy and what is false will not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 17, 2007)]
{5} They authored between them 94% of The Federalist Papers with the rest coming from the pen of the eventual first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Jay).
{6} I say "generally attributed" because the authorship of twelve of the essays is disputed with Hamilton writing at least 51 and Madison as many as 29. The Federalist #44 is most likely James Madison's work because Madison and Hamilton both credited it to him. Hamilton did this most notably during the fight for the charter of the Bank of the United States where he quoted the words of Madison against Madison's position: a strange tactic to take if those words were from Hamilton himself rather than Hamilton seeking to use the words of his positional adversary (then Rep. James Madison) against the writer of the words himself.
{7} President Jefferson tried to deal with England's encroachments on American sovereignty in a most feeble fashion with an embargo of English goods (the Embargo Act of 1807) which seriously impaired American commerce (practically in New England) while not putting a hurt on England at all. It was not repealed until early 1809 on the day when Jefferson was about to leave office.
{8} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.
{9} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.
{10} I refer here to the Alien Enemies Act which was one of four acts passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. Two of them had sunset clauses in them and the third was repealed by President Jefferson. The fourth act (the aforementioned Alien Enemies Act) is still in force today, was used by President James Madison during the War of 1812, and also by President George W. Bush in what has been (imprudently in my view) called the "War on Terror."
{11} On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)
{12} Congress has the power to declare war but without the president explicitly requesting it from congress, such is hardly ever (if ever) forthcoming.
{13} I could also if not for the sake of time and not wanting to get too far offtrack point out that the arguments against non-gold backed currency made by some conservatives have a similar problem jiving with a healthy third view approach to the Constitution as enunciated above. (And also note another perilous historical example or two of how their prescriptions would have been detrimental to the survival of the Republic they would profess a love for.)
{14} Since those words were written, the election of Michael Steele as I noted a few days ago has made me strongly considering after over twelve years in political exile a reaffiliation with the Republican Party -something that was nowhere near my radar screen when those words were originally written.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This text was largely drafted and refined between April 10, 2007 and December 30, 2007 with a few finishing bits (including a couple of footnotes and some minor tweaking) being done in the past month and a half and a final retouching this morning. -ISM]
"A conservatism that cannot find room in its folds for the actualities is a conservatism that is not a political force, or even a twitch: it has become a literary whimsy." [William F. Buckley Jr. (circa 1967)]
In writing on the 2008 Presidential race and various and sundry subjects connected therein{1}, it seemed opportune to address a major problem I have previously mentioned. Many who consider themselves "conservatives" have a problem presenting a coherent, workable, and historically sound model for effective governance. I will include some mention of those conservatives' ideological foes and I will assess both groups using the criteria in which all matters political, social, economic and moral must be viewed by Americans who recognize the role of law in a just society.{2}
Unfortunately, part of the reason for the political division we see in America today is a skewed conception of these matters that has come about for a variety of reasons both historical as well as circumstantial. The purpose of this posting is to explain these as well as note what is lacking in modern politics to counteract the extremes. But to best understand this, I want to address the nation's founding and assess the original political and ideological divisions to better understand what has subsequently happened.
Political parties did not exist in the United States before July 4, 1776 or thereafter. The reason was because the nation was at war with the mightiest empire of its time and trying to do what no nation had ever succeeded in doing before: to throw off the shackles of colonial rule for reasons based on principles of human dignity and the rights pertaining thereof rather than mean self interests. Although these principles were not always followed with crystal consistency (as the whole issue of slavery exemplifies{3}), they must be examined even in passing when it comes to the heart of any governmental arrangement.
The political climate as we have seen it in recent decades has worsened to the point to where amicable discourse is seemingly not possible anymore.{4} This in and of itself is not a problem per se because even in the earliest days of the republic, people disagreed passionately on issues. The difference is the party system to some extent. Most people do not realize that political parties were not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution; back then, even political enemies among the Founders generally assumed that those in positions of leadership (whatever their views) were acting in good will and in accordance with what they believed to be the best interests of the United States. Parties originally did not exist. This explains why the first President of the United States (one General George Washington) was elected unanimously for two terms.
But even when the party system developed over time, a conscious attempt to focus and achieve the interests of the common good dominated most of the age of this nation's history. However, the Democratic Party has gotten away from this understanding in recent decades, as have many in the Republican Party. Concern for the common good gave way to putting selfish personal interests first and that is what the problem we see today is in spades: opposing personal interest groups more interested in their selfish whims than in what is good for the nation as a whole. And with many of these people, they do not care if something is allowed under the Constitution or not, they simply try and take it and do not give a damn while blaming others for doing the same thing. This is the problem of "unconstitutionality" which I refer to in the title of this post.
A reaction of sorts to this prevailing attitude has become fashionable by some who call themselves "conservatives" who at the very least appeal to the Constitution on sundry and divers matters. However, history shows that their approach does not work. I will provide a few examples to illustrate this principle lest readers think I am merely asserting it without being able to supply any proofs.
At the dawn of the republic, rival factions developed different ways to view the Constitution. Its defenders explained the Constitution to the public through The Federalist Papers, and it is to that understanding that we must turn. But there must be some standard. Or as we noted back in 2007 when extending anew our previous offer to "evolving constitution" sorts to play a game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em" for money (an offer which in four years no one has yet taken us up on):
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
Here are the footnotes from the above posting:
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
The bottom line is that the Constitution needs to be a fixed point of reference for law . Early struggles were over how this was interpreted. Alexander Hamilton was the great Defender of the Constitution both in his actions to secure ratification as well as his authoring of approximately 60% or more of The Federalist Papers. James Madison has often been called "the Father of the Constitution" due to his role in the drafting of the Constitution as well as his singular authorship of the later Bill of Rights and a third of the texts from The Federalist.{5} Both of them wrote on the importance of implied powers as a requirement for the government to function. Hamilton's stance on this was firm and never wavered while the same cannot be said for Madison who in 1788 explained the principle of implied powers thusly in Federalist #44 -a paper generally attributed{6} to him:
No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. [James Madison: The Federalist #44 (circa 1788).]
Not long after Madison penned those words, he came to oppose Alexander Hamilton's proposed Bank of the United States. Hamilton defended the charter of the first Bank of the United States on the above principle while Madison opposed it as lacking explicit Constitutional grant. And it is at that point that we need to consider the branch of Constitutional interpretation which is promoted by many who call themselves "conservatives" today -particularly those of a libertarian stripe.
Hamilton and Madison appealed to President George Washington who requested from both of them arguments for their positions. Washington while an intelligent man was not the intellectual that Hamilton and Madison were and he did not hesitate to seek counsel to help him make a decision. Washington also asked each man to explain their position in a fashion which he could use should he decide in their favour. Madison's stance was to the point; namely that there was no explicit wording in the Constitution to support the idea of a national bank. Hamilton took the approach that the federal government had the authority as a sovereign power to employ whatever means were necessary to exercise the enumerated powers as long as the means utilized were neither (i) expressly prohibited by the Constitution itself, (ii) immoral, or (iii) contrary to other constitutional principles. Readers will notice a similarity in Hamilton's arguments to Washington with those of Madison in The Federalist. And ultimately, Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the charter of the first Bank of the United States into law with a twenty year sunset date.
Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the bank charter on a fundamentalist reading of the Constitution of the very sort that more "conservative" sorts today often appeal to. But history showed them that this was not workable. Jefferson as president was approached by Napoleon in 1803 to buy the Louisiana territory from him but could not square this offer with the very interpretation of the Constitution that he and Madison had taken in opposition to Hamilton and Washington twelve years earlier. Ultimately after conferring with Madison, Jefferson went ahead with the purchase anyway and proved that when the rubber meets the road, his strict interpretation of the Constitution was not tenable.
In Madison's case, his about-face from the Federalist principle he so astutely penned in 1788 was even more costly. Succeeding Jefferson in the presidency in 1809, Madison knew that the charter of the first Bank of the United States he bitterly opposed in 1791 was due to expire in 1811 and he fought every attempt to recharter it. After the bank charter expired, Madison found himself in a war with England which had been years in the making essentially{7} and in what would be a constant refrain due to the sad unwillingness to learn from history{8}, the military was drastically downsized after a major war only to be ill-equipped when it was necessary to resort to arms again.
As a result, President Madison had an ill-equipped military in disarray, the magnificent navy started under President Washington and expanded under President Adams was decimated under the tenure of President Jefferson. Madison thus had virtually no army or navy, no source to fund a war with the demise of the bank charter, a Congress that had declared war against the most powerful empire in the world, and that empire about to try and reconquer America. Fortunately, the United States won that war.{9} Afterward, Madison fought to recharter the Bank of the United States and this was achieved in 1817. He had realized through experience and numerous embarrassments that the strict fundamentalist reading of the Constitution was not tenable. Let us now transpose these models into modern parlance so that readers can see the current political picture with greater clarity.
There are at bottom three approaches to take on the matter of the government intervention. There is the unconstitutional such as Democrats and those who want federal intervention everywhere and anywhere to fit their pet subjects without concern for the Constitution or any attempt to square their view with what the law of the land actually is. Then there is the unworkable such as Ron Paul sorts whose approach to the constitution has historically not worked and (if adhered to) would have first lost the United States the greatest land acquisition in its history followed by a loss to England in the War of 1812 if Madison had (among other things) ignored the enforcement of a provision he and Jefferson fought against during the Undeclared War of 1798.{10} But in both cases, the strict approach to the Constitution proved that it did not work with Madison learning through experience that his stance as enunciated in Federalist #44 was correct not only abstractly but also in reality.
The path between the unconstitutional weltanchauung of the liberal so-called "progressives" and the unworkable approach advocated by the Ron Pauls and Tom Tancredos of the world is one which recognizes both explicit grants of authority in the Constitution but also implicit ones which are logically required for the explicit ones to be actually carried out provided that they conform to the three points noted above. The key here is what is "required." In the examples already given, Hamilton pushed for the central bank arguing that the Constitution gave the government power over coining money and regulating exchange but did not say how this was to be done. Hamilton reasoned that the bank therefore was needed to carry out the explicit mandate of the Constitution on coining money and regulating exchange. This is one example of recognizing a necessary implied power.
The example with President Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase was that the president had the authority with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties with foreign powers. In order to execute a treaty with Napoleon for Louisiana, President Jefferson needed to have the authority to buy the land. Jefferson went to the Congress, which authorized the purchase to enable Jefferson to carry out the treaty making power he was vested with in the Constitution. This is another example of a required implied power to carry out explicit Constitutionally delegated powers.{11} And of course the myriad of times the president has used the armed forces without an explicit declaration of war going back to President Washington{12} is another example of legitimate implied powers{13} being utilized.
It has long been my position that we need a third way in politics -this is something that I knew intuitively even when I had not explicitly worked out all the details of how it would be done. I have even supported variations of a third party in the past with the idea that the third party would have to take time to be built up to be a competing force politically and be well organized on Constitutional principles first lest it go the way of all third parties historically. But ultimately, if the sort of third way I outline above could be achieved in one of the major parties, then I would have no problem giving that party the sort of political loyalty I would like to give a political party. Until that happens, I cannot and will not be affiliated with any political party until support for the Constitution is shown to be a reality and not merely a bunch of rhetoric thrown about during election seasons with nothing tangible in reality being done in the halls of government about it.{14}
For there is a serious lacuna in general goodwill between people of various viewpoints coupled with an inability to amicably discuss principles without viewing those who do not agree with them as either sinister, evil, or some other caricature. I believe this is inevitable in a society where reason and logic are not properly valued and (sadly enough) that has been the case for a long time now. The latter, though, ranges beyond the scope of this post to adequately deal with but it deserves at least a brief mention in passing.
[Dedicated to the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan]
Notes:
{1} Unlike a lot of commentators, your host did not expect to do much in this area before the proximity of the 2007 elections (read: until after Labour Day) and indeed that proved to be the case.
{2} Though longtime readers of this humble weblog may expect an explicit reference to the theory of Claude Frederic Bastiat at some point, I refer only implicitly to that but explicitly in this context to the founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States respectively.
{3} The problem was that slavery as an institution or system was well entrenched in America. I explain the context of this factor as it pertained to the Founding Fathers and the diversity of their views on the matter here for those who are interested:
On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)
{4} We live in a divisive 24/7 media culture and the perception has been created that one cannot have principled disagreements with someone else on issues without one side being somehow degraded. Obviously I have a passion for many issues but I am nonetheless aware that there are people who disagree with me on some/many/most/all things. I do not lose sleep over this because of a belief I have that ultimately what is true will have lasting efficacy and what is false will not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 17, 2007)]
{5} They authored between them 94% of The Federalist Papers with the rest coming from the pen of the eventual first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Jay).
{6} I say "generally attributed" because the authorship of twelve of the essays is disputed with Hamilton writing at least 51 and Madison as many as 29. The Federalist #44 is most likely James Madison's work because Madison and Hamilton both credited it to him. Hamilton did this most notably during the fight for the charter of the Bank of the United States where he quoted the words of Madison against Madison's position: a strange tactic to take if those words were from Hamilton himself rather than Hamilton seeking to use the words of his positional adversary (then Rep. James Madison) against the writer of the words himself.
{7} President Jefferson tried to deal with England's encroachments on American sovereignty in a most feeble fashion with an embargo of English goods (the Embargo Act of 1807) which seriously impaired American commerce (practically in New England) while not putting a hurt on England at all. It was not repealed until early 1809 on the day when Jefferson was about to leave office.
{8} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.
{9} Those who wonder why I have always so resolutely taken many of the stands I have -even on matters that may appear more than a bit controversial- it is because I take history and learning from it so seriously and expect those I dispute with to have a similar concern themselves if we are to avoid repeating history as sadly so many generations since the dawn of time have done.
{10} I refer here to the Alien Enemies Act which was one of four acts passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. Two of them had sunset clauses in them and the third was repealed by President Jefferson. The fourth act (the aforementioned Alien Enemies Act) is still in force today, was used by President James Madison during the War of 1812, and also by President George W. Bush in what has been (imprudently in my view) called the "War on Terror."
{11} On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)
{12} Congress has the power to declare war but without the president explicitly requesting it from congress, such is hardly ever (if ever) forthcoming.
{13} I could also if not for the sake of time and not wanting to get too far offtrack point out that the arguments against non-gold backed currency made by some conservatives have a similar problem jiving with a healthy third view approach to the Constitution as enunciated above. (And also note another perilous historical example or two of how their prescriptions would have been detrimental to the survival of the Republic they would profess a love for.)
{14} Since those words were written, the election of Michael Steele as I noted a few days ago has made me strongly considering after over twelve years in political exile a reaffiliation with the Republican Party -something that was nowhere near my radar screen when those words were originally written.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Daschle out as HHS Secretary
When we consider that so far President Barack Obama's cabinet appointments have gone to various lobbyists or other political insiders, it is the considered view of your host that the bloom has left the Obama rose faster than any presidency in recent memory. The withdrawal of someone we have long been disgusted by{1} is only the latest as we now have a Treasury Secretary in Tim Geithner who like former Senator Daschle did not pay his taxes but an Attorney General in Eric Holder who is probably the worst apple of the bunch since he favours the kind of stupid gun control policies that have never worked and never will work in reducing crime.{2} I do not care what race, religion, etc. anyone has in government as long as their policies are the ones that will be truer to the core of this country's founding -one of which is a healthy respect for the individual right to self defense.
So with the Republicans in the House stood tall and did not cast a single vote for theScrewjob "Stimulus Bill" and the election as Republican National Committee chair of one Michael Steele, the withdrawal of former Senator Thomas Daschle is a good sign for those of us who are not interested in the sort of "change" that President Barack Obama has claimed he wants to bring to this nation -even if the Senate remains to stand tall and hopefully filibuster this plan long enough to at least lower its popularity in case it does eventually pass whereby to pin the inevitable economic boondoggle{3} on the Democrats and President Obama if not defeat it altogether.
Notes:
{1} For one such example from the archives, consider this posting from late 2004.
{2} Points to Ponder on Gun Control (circa December 9, 2008)
{3} The principles where I approach this proposed "bailout" by President Obama are the same as those whereby I opposed the one implemented under President George W. Bush at the tail end of his term. And to illustrate this point, here are the most germane of threads directly applicable to the subject from the archives of this weblog in order from oldest to newest
Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 1, 2008)
More Brief Bits on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 3, 2008)
More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)
When we consider that so far President Barack Obama's cabinet appointments have gone to various lobbyists or other political insiders, it is the considered view of your host that the bloom has left the Obama rose faster than any presidency in recent memory. The withdrawal of someone we have long been disgusted by{1} is only the latest as we now have a Treasury Secretary in Tim Geithner who like former Senator Daschle did not pay his taxes but an Attorney General in Eric Holder who is probably the worst apple of the bunch since he favours the kind of stupid gun control policies that have never worked and never will work in reducing crime.{2} I do not care what race, religion, etc. anyone has in government as long as their policies are the ones that will be truer to the core of this country's founding -one of which is a healthy respect for the individual right to self defense.
So with the Republicans in the House stood tall and did not cast a single vote for the
Notes:
{1} For one such example from the archives, consider this posting from late 2004.
{2} Points to Ponder on Gun Control (circa December 9, 2008)
{3} The principles where I approach this proposed "bailout" by President Obama are the same as those whereby I opposed the one implemented under President George W. Bush at the tail end of his term. And to illustrate this point, here are the most germane of threads directly applicable to the subject from the archives of this weblog in order from oldest to newest
Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 1, 2008)
More Brief Bits on the Proposed "Bailout" (circa October 3, 2008)
More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)