Note…
…that so far today, I’m avoiding politics. We’ll see whether I succeed.
But just because I’m trying to take a day off from the fray, that doesn’t mean that you have to. Here’s a nice open thread for you. Tempting, isn’t it?
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.
– John Milton, Areopagitica: A speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the Parliament of England, 1644
Here’s what I want to know what people think of: Does it matter or not whether Romneycare’s individual mandate is at the state level?
Richard Epstein does not think so. Go to 6:30 and specifically at 7:50 for the individual autonomy argument. I note the “upside down” question (which is my concern with Romney) that people ask “Does the constitution forbid it?” when they should ask “Does the constitution allow it.”
http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2012/02/01/obamacare-and-the-constitution/
I know that some are concerned that Romney isn’t really a conservative and that he caters to what is popular with the electorate. Even though I’m supporting Romney for other reasons, that worries me some too.
But, this nation *IS* a right/center nation so I expect him to govern in a right center way. That’s far better than Obama’s ultraliberalism and his total lack of concern for adhering to the Constitution.
Romney is certainly not an ideological conservative. I argue that what we need in 2012 is someone who will do what s/he can to halt and even begin to reverse the momentum that has us relentlessly careening towards Euro-style socialism.
It won’t be done all at once, or even in a four-year presidential administration.
Once ^that^ task is accomplished, we can enjoy the luxury of concerning ourselves about whether the president, as well as the congress, down the pike, is sufficiently conservative/capitalist/libertarian for our tastes.
Get a load of this, from the WSJ:
Obama’s Maddening, Winning Speech
Looks like we’re going to find out just how gullible our fellow citizens are. I have a feeling we won’t like the answer.
Curtis, I say it absolutely matters what level the mandate is at. That’s the whole point of our federalist system, something that far too many people don’t understand.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding it though. As I understand, if the federal Constitution forbids the individual mandate, it seems to me that the state can’t override that. If the Constitution allows it, the state can institute it or not, depending on that state’s laws.
Random political observation: Self-described “true conservatives” seem to be kind of ambivalent about their relationship to the Republican Party. One the one hand, I keep hearing a lot of these people making all sorts of pronouncements about how they are separate from, and to the right of, the GOP. For example, self-described Tea Partiers generally speak pretty unkindly about the Republican Party, and most especially the GOP “establishment.” Therefore, it seems as though “true conservatives” these days see themselves as being outside the mainstream of the Republican Party.
On the other hand, “true conservatives” promiscuously label GOP moderates as “Republicans in name only,” or RINOs. This implies that it’s the MODERATES, not themselves, whom the true conservatives see as being outside the party’s mainstream.
I suppose it comes down to whether “true conservatives” still think of the GOP as “their” party, or whether they have more or less given up on it and are rallying around the “Tea Party” or “independent” label.
Well, that’s the question. My position is that the Constitution does not allow it at the federal level. That many, many people disagree is true, but I take Professor Epstein’s view that Wickard is a perversion of the commerce clause and all that follows including health mandates to purchase insurance or subsidize others.
So, then, people say, the federal gov’t cannot require it but the states can. But, does the mandate violate basic freedoms which the 14th amendment has been used to apply to all levels of gov’t.
My position is that just like states cannot enforce Jim Crow discrimination, neither should they be able to enforce coercion into the marketplace. But, for this idea to have more power, Wickard v Filburn would need to be overturned–and that’s the real conservative revolution that needs to happen.
Go Clarence Thomas!
Curtis, I agree with you, I just think it’s important to maintain the difference between states and the feds in the discussion.
rickl, that is a very disturbing and frustrating aspect of kids raised on a postmodernism diet.
Obama is a serpent and to kill a serpent you have to separate its head from the rest of its body. Obama is the head and these 6000 young Intel “sophisticates” is the body. The strategy should concentrate on showing the hypocrisy of Obama, how he does not practice what he preaches. Even postmodernists don’t respect hypocrisy.
Coulter says,
No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.
Yeah, Ann, that’s exacly what alot of us are saying. Too bad you’ve gone gunnysack and now have as your supporters David Frum!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html
@ Curtis: I think there are two different issues and it would behoove conservatives to approach them as such.
A federal individual mandate is objectionable on Constitutional grounds because it goes beyond what Congress can legitimately regulate under the Commerce Clause. This is mainly an objection on federalism grounds. And it presents the basis for a fairly discrete legal challenge.
A state’s individual mandate doesn’t present this specific problem. Since state legislatures aren’t constrained by the Commerce Clause, you’d have to look to another theory as to why a state’s individual mandate would be unconstitutional.
Personally, I think the whole federal/state scheme by which governments collect taxes and impose regulations in order to force citizens to pay for one another’s health care services violates the framers’ conception of a free society predicated on limited government. I doubt anybody would have considered our current redistributionist policies to be remotely constitutional in 1788 or for at least a hundred years thereafter. But politicians and judges have gradually permitted collectivist impulses to alter our original understanding of what freedom is.
For me, the Mass.-imposed individual mandate is objectionable mainly because it further institutionalizes and validates an illegitimate, redistributionist scheme that was already in place. Put it this way: If the Mass. Legislature repealed just the individual mandate of Romneycare tomorrow, I wouldn’t feel any “freer” than I do today. I’d still be compelled to pay a lot of taxes to provide health care to people I don’t know. I’d still have my own health care choices limited by the regulations and costs the state and federal government decided to impose on health care providers and insurers. I could drop my individual coverage, but as a practical matter I wouldn’t be able to do that because government involvement in the HC sector has driven up the cost of care to such levels that it would probably bankrupt me to become ill.
I like that analysis alot. Maybe, because it’s hard to pinpoint the constitutional right that is being violated, the best place to beat it is at the ballot box.
For me, it’s simple. They are violating my property. The state is making me pay for someone else and the justification doesn’t fall under a duty required by the Constitution.
It is a violation of limited government and the right of individual of free choice. They couldn’t pass it as a tax, so they passed it as a mandate which less people objected because it didn’t affect them.
The whole thing stinks and it certainly did not fulfill its purpose in Massachusetts. The fines collected have come nowhere near paying for the health care to the indigent that is provided.
IMO the 9th & 10th allow the states much more power over a wide range of issues than the Constitution accords to DC. IMO states are allowed to experiment provided they do not violate individual rights protected by the Constitution per article 4, section 2.
That doesn’t mean I think Romney Care was a wise or fiscally sound law. But what if a Iowa town decided, through its rules of governance, that all citizens of the town must join the same health insurance pool if they wanted to receive treatment at the local community supported hospital, would that be unconstitutional?
@curtis
What do you mean by “matter”?
Are you asking whether there is an issue under the 10th amendment?
Than no, not specifically (perhaps as an adjunct).
Or with the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)?
Probably not.
Or with the 14th amendment, clause 1?
Possibly, leaning to probably, yes.
Or perhaps the 9th amendment?
HIGHLY likely (whether justiciable or not? – beats me, but probably no).
Or perhaps the 5th amendment?
I’m not familiar enough with the specifics of the MA law …but if it has a 1-to-1 correspondence with certain of the enforcement penalties of the ACA, yes.
Followup: After reading a bit, it appears there’s the same issue with penalties in Romneycare as in Obamacare (that’s probably a “duh”, since we know that the ACA was almost certainly lifted from the MA bill), so yes.
Or maybe the 4th amendment?
This may be a stretch, but I’d say no (a case might be made for it, but only one outside the typical writ of assistance body of law motivations).
Since I’m not sure where you’re leading, its hard to be definitive. The law sucks. Yes, I understand the law may be what “the people” wanted …but I consider many such rhetorical distractions to be logical non sequiturs and furthermore, disturbingly akin to Tytler’s truism on the Athenian Republic
So as justification for the law, an argument based upon that thought is not the sparkling validation that I’ve seen it used as. (Granted, that’s just me.)
…asking if Romneycare is legal even within the state belies the question, than, don’t it?
And is akin to asking – as the question posed in your video link does – whether the focus should be, does the constitution “forbid it” or “allow it”?
I’d argue instead, that the issue is rather a “cultural normative challenge” (if you will) between limited-government-at-any-issue vs. expansive-government-at-every-level, and that is the relevant argument to be having.
…because it’s not the legality (or lack thereof). It’s the foundational beliefs that seem to have been weakened to the point of being unrecognizable that’s the real problem. We’re being coerced to focus on shadows; no wonder it’s hard to see clearly.
Couldn’t it be that to argue that the “legality as core argument” focus of this issue is a mote? A distraction? I know, as such, it’s been one reason [for me] to be suspicious of a technocrat like Romney.
Romney’s not the solution; he’s emblematic of the conundrum that leads one to vastly appreciate the sly humour in the Vote Cthulhu – Why settle for a lesser evil? bumper sticker.
Soooo, you ask “Well, is Newt’ really any better?” – Fair enough, so this: “‘better’ only by such thin margins, as belies the meaning of the term” …and as desultory answer, one that may be fairly construed as such that I despair of both choices …than that I care enough to further dispute details, beyond the choice itself “ad nauseum” …but only Santorum currently remains: and I just don’t see it …though by the time “it” gets to that, “it” may be over enough that my vote don’t matter tactically, and I can at least vote Santorum, and exit the booth with a clear conscience.
…so, granting I’m not exactly a Newt-bot, I’m equally not looking at Romney with blinders on. Heh: to the point, Newt upset me less; at least there’s that. Leave it at that, for now.
There have been a number of legal challenges to Romneycare: the legal basis for arguments include …as a bill of attainder violation (federal issue under Article 1, Section 9), as a right against self-incrimination violation (federal issue, 5th amendment), as a due process violation (federal, 5th amendment & MA state Article 14), as proportional taxation (MA state constitution issue), frugality (MA issue), eminent domain (MA issue). I don’t know of any successful challenges, nor the current status of any beyond the Wikipedia link.
——
As for the Epstein video though (as far as I listened), there was this humorous moment: “If there were nine Brian Epsteins sitting on the Court, five would vote one way, and four the other.” Funny, that.
Romney and “poor people” comment
This is example of how either ignorance or miscalculation damages Romney’s election chances.
Because Romney does not understand first principles of conservatism, therefore Romney is sensitive and apologetic about his wealth. Anyone who has earned their money fairly, and who understands first principles, is not the least bit apologetic about the wealth which they have earned.
Romney’s sensitivity about his wealth, and Romney’s lack of understanding of how first principles of conservatism would protect him and justify him, lead to Romney’s error of either consciously or unconsciously promoting class warfare via encouraging the middle class to believe they must compete, for a portion of a fixed pie, against the poor and the rich.
If Romney understood first principles, then Romney would understand that a rising tide lifts all boats. Romney would understand that a government which strives for freedom for its citizens .. also achieves more equality for its citizens. Conversely, a government which strives for equality .. achieves both less freedom and less equality. If Romney understood first principles, then Romney would understand (and publicly assert) that the best system, in all of history, for alleviating the suffering of the common man, is the free enterprise system. Then Romney would not either consciously or unconsciously make the error of encouraging class warfare amongst American citizens.
This possibility worries me: that Romney does understand first principles, yet has rejected them as a campaign strategy. I do not think that is the case. I think Romney is simply ignorant of first principles. Ignorance is better: it means Romney can still learn, and can change and adapt. The other possibility, i.e. that Romney has strategically rejected the advocacy of first principles, horrifies me. Romney’s continuing focus on Elect me b/c my opponents have too many flaws! Let me show you all the flaws my opponents have! .. is a worrisome indication that Romney cynically rejects the advocacy of first principles as a campaign strategy. The more he campaigns on all opponents flaws, all the time, the more worried I get, and the less I like him.
Mitt Romney, if he is to win in the general, needs first principles. Such would reduce his innate shame and apologeticism (s/b a word) re his own wealth; would protect him re his own wealth (via pointing to the uselessness of class warfare); would create a mandate for his Presidency (first principles!); would win conservative voters whom HE MUST HAVE if he is to defeat Barack.
Our federal system provides a flexibility, a practicalbility, which is genuis, and I wouldn’t want to jeopardize that by restricting for one issue where, later, I would want admission on another issue. Consider, say, physician assisted suicide and abortion. Pretty different per each state. Helps keep the peace.
The question is, “is there a fundamental right being violated?” Ann Coulter says no. I say yes. The right of government, any government, to seize property must be justified. The health care justification is no justification because what can’t be construed as health care?
As to the local community supported hospital, would it be unconstitutional? Well, I guess it depends on what is meant by community supported? If it is community supported without taxes or subsidies, the matter is simple: the hospital and the potential patient enter into a contract and there is no problem. That’s the way it should work, mostly, I believe.
But if the hospital receives all sorts of benefits from the community (land, tax refunds, free marketing, zoning preference, free employment training, utilities) then there’s some sort of return to the community expected and since everyone is part of the community, everyone might expect to some sort of described service and not receiving it would be a denial, again, of a right to property.
davisbr, I’m going to have to read that one carefully. Great stuff.
Glad I took the day off. Sorry to be too prevalent, but, what the hell.
You helped me see exactly my problem. I don’t like it, but it’s hard to find a good ground to oppose Romneycare. The 14th? Probably, the best but highly ironic given that conservatives have resisted the overzealous application of the 14th.
I always find it amazing that slavery stills structures our “freedoms.” My “niggar” poem was meant to show how slavery is an issue that will never disappear. Slaves, ie., niggars, are being courted and cajoled every day. (Thanks to Neo for not censoring. Whites have every much a right to say nigger as anybody else.)
Romneycare, to me, is a pseudo form of soft slavery whereupon everyone is made a slave: the producers because their property is seized, and the non-producers because their dignity and happiness is sacrificed for free goods and services. Romneycare is soft socialism and behind the fence, a fence we all have to draw for ourselves, but for me, a fence I draw to not allow Romneycare in.
Davis, your following quote is my hero:
I’d argue instead, that the issue is rather a “cultural normative challenge” (if you will) between limited-government-at-any-issue vs. expansive-government-at-every-level, and that is the relevant argument to be having.
wunnerful, wunnerful.
It’s how we see things and the challenge is to beat back the postmodern hatred of authority and natural law. I see a connection between rickl’s post on the 6000 screaming Intel employees applauding Obama’s scree unable to determine that the head of the serpent is opening wide its jaws.
@ Curtis:
Everyone may have a right to say it, but I’m at a loss to understand why you are using that term in the context of this discussion. Seems quite inappropriate to me.
I think conservatives are making a mistake if we are assuming that because Romneycare is a bad piece of legislation, it must be in violation of SOME provision of the U.S. Constitution. We don’t want the buy into the left’s notion that the Constitution operates as a wild card that courts can play whenever they want to second-guess decisions made by popularly-elected legislatures. In the absence of a fairly clear constitutional constaint on a state’s ability to enact something like Romneycare, I think it’s best to approach this as something for a future Mass. legislature to undo.
Good observation, Conrad, on the nigger thing.
I am an artiste. There is an artiste on state. Quiet. I am allowed my sacred individual expression.
Neo,
You tempt me. 🙂
“We don’t want the buy into the left’s notion that the Constitution operates as a wild card that courts can play whenever they want to second-guess decisions made by popularly-elected legislatures.”
Great point Conrad. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
“In the absence of a fairly clear constitutional constaint on a state’s ability to enact something like Romneycare, I think it’s best to approach this as something for a future Mass. legislature to undo.”
De-evolution is needed. Here in Iowa there is a struggle over whether or not the state government can enact legislation to take away the power of local entities to determine property tax rates. I do not appreciate Des Moines dictating what is the prerogative of my country commissioners and my fellow voters in the county. Leave us alone and we’ll figure it out.
Subotai Bahadur has an interesting strategy involving the Green Party. Read the whole thing.
Confusion to BOTH of our Enemies
rickl,
THere is only one enemy but the enemy is two faced because (IMO) the enemy is the hard right and the hard left. So if I could choose between RP or Obama, I would whole heartedly choose RP. But then I would choose anyone over BHO. When or if it comes down to Romney or Obama, I choose Romney. At least Mitt will buy us some time before the debt can reaches the edge of the abyss. I have a bit more ammo & beans to store and silver to buy before hyperinflation sets in. 😉
Curtis said “…. kids raised on a postmodernism diet.”
That is the pickle we are in.
The po-mo diet consists on grazing on a little logic, a couple of sad stories, some likeability stuff, a line or two from a song, some up dated hippy clothing, hand signals, some votes somewhere, a little guilt, a dash of hope, some other song, another story, a lot of pressure from some inchoate peer group said to be the smart and hip group, the word “sustainability”, another story, a tat, something some movie director said, and some jerks from your knee.
The po mo diet, while it includes the word “sustainable” warns against sustaining logic and facts long enough to construct a system of thought and operations that might possibly work on an economic and social level and that takes into account human nature. Such a sustained amount of thinking would disallow the freedom to graze on the tibdits above and simply to wish for a world that would work, knowing that you groove with the other wishers.
The po mo diet is not a strong or healthy diet.
Mark Levin sums it up well on Romneycare and a “reeducation” of Ann Coulter.
http://tinyurl.com/77ewnk5
Levin does not allege that Romneycare is unconstitutional on the state level but that it shows a lack of empathy with limited government principles and empathy for government solutions.
J.E. Dyer has a superb article. She reminds me a lot of Neo in tone and tenor and argument. She states:
“The most important thing now is that the small-government perspective continue to have a chance to express itself on its terms. If it is silenced in electoral politics, there will be no hope of changing America’s path. And the only way for it to have a voice is for this primary season to continue on a competitive basis. That is the mechanism through which the voice of either wing of the party matters to the industry of politics. That’s where the noise has to be made.”
So, if Newt wants to show a reformed Newt, let him act as that voice and make that voice the important issue, not his election.
http://tinyurl.com/84x243n
I don’t agree with the “this is the last chance” argument. In fact, my gut tells me that the last chance argument is a false premised argument because we’ve already lost our last chance. We’re not getting out of this one without a lot of pain and suffering and changing. The demographics, the debt, the culture . . . these are things that one third of the population cannot change.
So let Obama become President because in the next administration the boom is going to fall and the lesson that needs to be learned should not be confused by blaming it on a current administration. Keep buying guns, Parker, because there may very well appear a period of anarchy.
“the enemy is the hard right and the hard left”
The problem w/such a statement: I do not instinctively know your definition of, for instance, “hard right”.
Are you speaking of racial hatred? of hatred of homosexuals? If so, I agree that such hatred is the enemy of truth and goodness.
However, if you are speaking of principled opposition to affirmative action, or gay marriage, then I disagree with your definition of “enemy”.
Re this election cycle:
exists intellectual disagreement about how to win independents during the general election. Is “do not scare independents” the best way to win? Or, is “promote first principles of conservatism” (i.e. promote truth) the best way to win?
Note: “promote first principles” IS NOT an instance of emotional irrational fools who thirst for death. Rather, it is an intellectual disagreement about what constitutes winning strategy. The “promote first principles” crowd makes this argument: Reagan 1980 44 states; Reagan 1984 49 states. That is not an argument which is overemotional and irrational. It is not the argument of an enemy of electoral victory. It is not a thirst for death arguthe pejoratives “hard right” and “enemy”. Rather, “44 states and 49 states” constitutes a fair intellectual argument.
Dismissing people with labels is too easy. If our arguments are so stupid, then it ought be easy to defeat our arguments.
Political consultants are certain independents lead the country’s direction. But independents are just the people most in need of leadership.
Noonan says the Repub establishment (it exists!) is troubled by Romney in many of the same ways in which insurgent Tea Partiers are troubled by Romney. She advises Romney in ways identical to some of our advice:
My creeping suspicion of the problem, with Mr. Romney giving a fuller picture of his thoughts, is that Mr. Romney’s thoughts are less sophisticated and less wise than, say, Governor Perry’s thoughts. And we saw how far that got Governor Perry. In fact, let me restate: my suspicion, of Mr. Romneys shallowness, is not creeping, but rather is a runaway herd of wild horses. Mr. Romney reminds of Barack in this way: Mr. Romney is doing his best to impersonate a blank slate. He sees no reason to reveal who he, in actuality, is not. As in: a person of philosophic depth. More Noonan, re the Repub establishment’s problems with Romney:
So, Noonan says Romney needs to win the establishment; must have the establishment if he is to win the general election. I keep saying Romney needs to win the “first principles” conservatives; must have us if he is to win the general election. Therefore: who are these people who are voting for Romney, who support Romney in polling? Is this a large swath of center right Repubs who represent … not a silent majority, b/c they are not a majority .. but rather a silent half of all Repub voters? Are they rising up, in emotional adn determined moderation, shouting “Moderation or Death!”, and demanding Mitt Romney as their champion?
Noonan link – worth the look, esp for her pointing to how Barack just lost the election via the ideological Catholic Hospital ruling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577199523577373982.html
Noonan is wrong, however, that Barack just lost the election via the Catholic Hospital ruling. Barack was already going to lose, and decisively. His Catholic Hospital ruling merely (and, using appropriate metaphor!) drives the nail in further.
Maybe it comes down to simple theories that come true: Conservatives will vote for Romney because he’s much better than Obama and moderates will vote for Romney because they sense he’s okay and not threatening and Obama doesn’t seem to have done too much good.
But this much seems apparent. The race is Romney’s to lose.
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=33515
The following excerpt by proteinwisdom introduces a small speech by Milton Friedman on minimum wage:
Meaning, either “conservatism” has – like “liberalism” before it – evolved in meaning to embrace its erstwhile opposite; or else we’re being told to back a Republican candidate who both accepts, and plans to govern within, an economic framework as defined by the Left – meaning we’ve conceded that in order to win elections, we have to surrender our foundational principles and agree to manage an overreaching, unconstitutional federal Leviathan from within the confines of a progressive, Marxist economic framework.
How could anyone get excited about Romney?
gcotharn,
“The problem w/such a statement: I do not instinctively know your definition of, for instance, “hard right”.”
To me the hard right is Buchanan and the hard left is Kucinich (BHO, Waters, etc.). Either end of the spectrum is not viable in our society and never will be for more than a few years of panic & hysteria. We have to accept what the majority is willing to accept and push things in our desired direction bit by bit. I’m libertarian in principal. I want the least government possible. I want the maximum individual liberty possible. I am willing to compromise on certain levels, unwilling on others. But I recognize that my unwillingness to compromise on my ‘first principles’ is without any meaning as far as society at large is concerned.
I can not expect society to turn towards my vision of a just, sane, and civil society at one turn in the ballot box. While extremism is a squishy term, I’ll go ahead and define it as demanding absolute agreement on all issues or else. It doesn’t work that way. The market place of ideas does not flip over night or over a few years. Perhaps it will take a great catastrophe to turn heads towards my vision of how it should be; OTOH it is just (or more) likely to turn heads toward a vision that I find unacceptable. However, I am confident that I will know when the situation becomes totally unacceptable and that I will instinctively know its time to load all the magazines and throw caution to the wind. From my POV we’re not there yet.