How about that Constitution, and what about those candidates?
Blogger Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield) tackles a topic that seems to be on everyone’s minds lately: whether the way to go in order to combat today’s Democratic Party (otherwise known as the Left) is to follow the strict letter of the Constitution, or if we should wink at that Constitution in order to save it.
Greenfield sets up the idea that Obama has changed the rules of the game by abusing his power. In evaluating Trump’s appeal, Greenfield makes it clear that he does not necessarily think Trump can or will do what he says he can, or that he’s a person who even means what he says. But that is not so relevant when looking at his appeal to people who have become profoundly disillusioned with and angry at the current state of affairs.
It’s certainly not just about Trump, either. It’s about how best to fight the left and win. I would add that I think it’s only been in the last few years of the Obama administration that more people on the right have become alarmed at this, and have recognized the power of the left and the vast inroads it has already made. Until recently, the right was for the most part living in a dreamworld about that, and some on the right still are. Again, the question is what to do about it. Greenfield puts it this way:
How do you uphold a liberal open system while fighting an illiberal left for control of it?
There are no easy answers. And most of the easy ones come down to messaging. But simply making a better argument isn’t enough when the left flagrantly abuses power.
It’s not simply a question of getting a Republican in the White House. Reagan and Bush II were both in the White House. How much did they really get done? Bush II had a Republican congress. But the left simply shifts power and legitimacy to whatever institutions it controls, elected or unelected, and then governs from there.
I agree with the last sentence—or, at least, with the prediction that if a Republican president and a Republican Congress were to be elected then the left would try to shift power and to govern from whatever institutions it does control (and they are many—for example, the press).
But I have some things I’d like to add to the rest of the paragraph. Of course, it’s not simply a question of getting a Republican in the White House. But what of Reagan and Bush II? Reagan was hampered by the fact that, although he had a slight Republican advantage in the Senate (until he lost it in the last two years of his presidency), Democrats strongly controlled the House for the entire eight years of his presidency. So he is not an example of a Republican president and a Republican Congress, and what the combination might be able to accomplish.
And what about Bush II’s Republican Congress? As with Reagan, Democrats were in control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush II presidency. What’s more, for the first four years, the Senate was essentially split just about evenly, and the Republican margin in the House was also exceptionally slim. And even during those 2 years of Republican Congressional control of both houses when the Senate was not essentially split and was instead firmly in Republican hands—January 2005 to January 2007, when there were 55 Republican senators to 45 Democratic ones—not only did that mean that the Democrats could continue to block legislation by failing to vote for cloture, but in addition, among those 55 Republican senators there were many who were so liberal as to practically be Democrats. In fact, some of whom later became Democrats, such as Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Spector, and some of them merely voted with Democrats a fair amount, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham. What’s more, 2005-2007 were the years when the Bush presidency was consumed and distracted by the Iraq War and the need to muster support for the surge. And to top it all off, Bush himself was no conservative, and was not trying to lead in a conservative direction.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that, if there were a conservative president and significant (as opposed to borderline) control of both houses of Congress by Republicans, we’d see a sea-change at this point. I’m merely saying that I don’t think that analogies with Reagan and Bush II are all that relevant. One change since Bush II’s time is that there are fewer RINOs in the Senate today (although some remain), due to conservative challenges which will no doubt continue. And I contend that we have not had a conservative president plus a Republican Congress since the days of Coolidge. Reagan has been the only conservative president since Coolidge, and he did not have a Republican House (Nixon, who was a bit of a conservative but not really, had a completely Democratic Congress to work with). So the formula “conservative president and Republican Congress” has not been tried in nearly a hundred years.
However, “the question of how to defeat an illiberal left remains.” That has been the question for a long time. Greenfield writes:
If the Republican establishment really wants to defeat Trump, it needs to find a credible answer to this question. Instead of thinking about how to defeat Trump, it really needs to answer how it will defeat Obama and the forces that gave rise to him. If it can’t figure out how to defeat illiberalism, it will be defeated by it.
Indeed. Hear, hear.
Greefield doesn’t explain how Cruz, for example, answers that question. But I believe that Cruz is certainly well aware of the problem. I believe that Cruz’s answer would be to stand your conservative ground and to win elections, and then implement changes. Some of these changes could be accomplished by an executive who merely undoes the executive orders of his/her predecessor, Obama. So perhaps that wouldn’t be so hard, nor would it be unconstitutional.
But the more basic problem—and it’s a problem we’ve been discussing on this blog for many many years—is that the left fights on all fronts, and is winning on many of them and controls them: press, education, entertainment (immigration is part of it, and that’s why it has become so important lately). Those things shape minds, and there is no quick way to change those institutions and to weaken liberal control over them, or undo their effect on generations who have grown up under them. I believe, however, that Cruz and several other candidates imagine that, if Republicans hold their own in Congress and a conservative is also elected president, it would lead to results that Americans will notice and will like, and then the conservative point of view will get more support. In other words, success will breed success.
The trouble with throwing away the Constitution and fighting fire with fire is that “ends justify means” actions tend to get out of control, destroying the good in the system as well as the bad.
Here’s a comment I found in the comments section of Greenfield’s piece:
…[W]e must set aside the constitution to save the constitution. The Left (and their collaborators in the GOPe) must be rooted out by unconstitutional means. After the job is done then the civil, liberal society can thrive again.
Okay, so tell me: how would that look? What would be set aside? And once it was done, how would “civil, liberal society thrive again?” And why on earth do a certain proportion of his supporters think Trump would be the man for that particular job, other than the “setting aside” part? He never speaks of the Constitution except in the most general of terms. What parts of the Constitution would he be throwing off, and what parts restoring?
Tyrannies always justify their tyranny by saying it’s for the greater good. That’s why the Founders were very wary of such a process; they had studied history. One piece of history they hadn’t studied—because it hadn’t quite occurred yet—was the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Now, Robespierre was an extreme example—and Trump isn’t about to cut off heads—but the Reign of Terror illustrates the principle of ends justify means so that “liberal society can thrive again”:
Robespierre had not abandoned his libertarian convictions, but he was coming to the conclusion that the ends justified the means, and that in order to defend the Revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified…
Perhaps it is because of the stark contrast between Robespierre’s ideals and what he became that the question of the Terror remains shocking. In the mind of Robespierre and many of his colleagues, the Terror had a deeper moral purpose beyond winning the civil war: to bring about a ”˜republic of virtue’. By this he meant a society in which people sought the happiness of their fellow humans rather than their own material benefit. France must be regenerated on moral lines. ”˜What is our aim?’ he asked in a speech of February 1794:
“The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice whose laws are written, not on marble or stone, but in the hearts of all men, even in that of the slave who forgets them and of the tyrant who denies them.”
He came to the conclusion that in order to establish this ideal republic one had to be prepared to eliminate opponents of the Revolution. The irony of this idea rings through in the same speech, when he justified the Terror. He said:
“If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie…”
He was not a hypocrite. He really did believe that the Terror could sustain the republic of virtue. But he was naturally self-righteous, suspicious and unforgiving. All these qualities came to the fore as it became evident that while the Terror played a key part in winning the war and quelling the counter-revolution, it was having the reverse effect as far as installing the republic of virtue was concerned…
As I said, neither Trump nor any of the other candidates are planning extra-judicial executions. But neither was Robespierre, initially. And summary executions are hardly the only way to trash the Constitution, as Obama and others before him have demonstrated.
I am very concerned by the willingness to go beyond the Constitution in the name of restoring virtue. I see the year 2016 as pivotal because with a conservative president and a Republican Congress we would actually have a chance of reversing things without resorting to ends justify means solutions, probably the first chance in a long long time. I see the answer, also, as much bigger than a strongman president: it’s that old Gramscian march once again. Reversing that accomplishment by the left requires a group of conservative activists dedicated to a long slow slog through those institutions in order to gain—or to regain—influence. If that isn’t done, we spiral down no matter who gets elected in 2016.
[NOTE: By the way, this is one of the most informative charts you’ll ever see. Please take a look.]
The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, established a revolutionary dictatorship that was going to compel people to be virtuous. That never works out very well.
If the GOP takes the Presidency and holds Congress with reasonably conservative and disciplined members (hah!), whether to keep the filibuster will be a big issue. Right behind it will be how to treat regulations and executive orders that Obama issued. The posture of the media and courts will be critical in what the GOP decides to do.
Personally, I would go nuclear. Obama has already shredded things and the Left won’t retreat from that unless they understand that the GOP can put them at risk. If the GOP doesn’t fight hard, we’re still in the one-way, leftward ratchet.
I would submit that one of the must crucial factors is a strong leader who is a great communicator… and who is not afraid to fight.
I have a lot of admiration for George W. Bush, but he was neither. He could stand firm for important principles, but he would not take the fight to his domestic opponents — and he was certainly well-known to be a poor communicator.
Reagan, of course, fit this bill admirably. I suspect Sen. Cruz or Sen. Rubio would also. Mrs. Fiorina might also be in this category, although I’m not sure. I do not think Ben Carson is the fighter we need.
It is the problem of how to fight someone (or something, the Left) that brings a gun to a knife fight.
Or whether to follow the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules when your opponent won’t.
It says precious little good about the opponents to Leftism that they do not trust themselves to fight it effectively and totally.
Robespierre and the mob is an example, not a prediction of inevitability.
World War II was fought by the Allies with extreme viciousness, brutality and slaughter, but the good guys did revert to good pretty doggone quickly once the job was done. The Left just kept marching along, and where are we now?
I do not trust those on the Right who see the Right just as corruptible as the Left. Sorry. Next they’ll be telling me the Nazis were Rightist.
Harvey Mansfield, WSJ: Taking Swipes at Publius
………………………………………………..
For purposes of reflection on the Constitution, we might pose to ourselves a kind of paradox, I think. It goes like this:
Q: Who is sovereign?
A: The Prince.
Q: Who is the Prince?
A: Everyone.
Should we combat today’s traitorous Left by following the strict letter of the Constitution or should we wink at that Constitution in order to save it?
We cannot save the Constitution. We can only hope to resurrect it after the majority of Americans who, out of ignorance support the left, awaken to what they’ve wrought. That awakening will involve much pain.
It is clear to see that following the Constitution is resulting in its gradual destruction. But winking at it completes its destruction because a Constitution that no one follows is, by definition a ‘dead letter’.
The answer to Greenfield’s question, “How do you uphold a liberal open system while fighting an illiberal left for control of it?” is that you can’t. You can’t insist upon the Marquis of Queensbury rules in a gunfight and win. ONLY by fighting by the ‘rules’ that your opponent fights by can you defeat them.
If Republicans hold their own in Congress and Cruz is elected president, it will lead to very modest results because most of that Congress will not support him beyond the minimum that political expediency demands. It is not just the Left that is destroying the Constitution, the GOPe is cooperating in that destruction, not out of ideological reasons but out of personal aggrandizement.
“the more basic problem… is that the left fights on all fronts, and is winning on many of them and controls them: press, education, entertainment (immigration is part of it, and that’s why it has become so important lately)”
Indeed. The simple truth of, and secret to their success is that they are NOT Americans. They are an activist fifth column, seditious and treasonous, using Gramscian methods to destroy from within that which they oppose. Assuming them to be loyal, even in the slightest… is like ignoring a burglar in your home and expecting to awaken with nothing missing.
“it’s that old Gramscian march once again. Reversing that accomplishment by the left requires a group of conservative activists dedicated to a long slow slog through those institutions in order to gain–or to regain–influence.”
Besides the fact that implementing that solution would require far more time than we have, it’s just too late, the younger generations are far too indoctrinated into the Left’s narrative. A prolonged and harsh exposure to reality is the ONLY thing that is going to refute that narrative.
If it is to awaken, America must have its mugging. The Left, Islam and yes, China will ensure we get it, good and hard.
Sure, I’ll vote for the republican nominee but whether Cruz, Trump or Rubio will not change the ‘chess pieces’ on the board. Hard times, they are a’coming.
Right. As always, the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
Dan Greenfield is on David Horowitz’s team, which advocates for Right activism, much like I do.
A difference between us, though, is his prescription looks chiefly to competitive changes by the “Republican establishment” to play the activist game beyond the electoral politics piece.
Mindful of the kind of concerns you raise, I instead distinguish the Right from the GOP and look to the people of the Right to do the dirty work and heavy lifting for the activist game. The kind of social action the Tea Party movement began correctly, before they committed the fundamental error of diverting their movement into the GOP and self-limiting to electoral politics.
Electoral politics are a subset of participatory politics. As such, the GOP can’t be immune to change in order to adapt to the activist game. The Right must hold the GOP accountable. But in order for the GOP to be retained in a more traditional form, mainstream conservatives must collectively and fully undertake the activism that’s necessary to compete on the full spectrum of participatory politics.
The Right must end their chronic self-defeating habit of assigning Right-activist tasks to the GOP, the kind of tasks that Left activists do for the Democrats. The Right needs to stop blaming the GOP for the consequences of the Right’s activist weakness that has enabled the Left activist Gramscian march.
As for the Founders, our Constitutional republic didn’t birth itself. Just go to Canada and learn their version of America’s founding for a more rounded picture of the kind of activists that the Founders were.
While the Founders may well have been “very wary of such a process” once they were in charge, they won the American nation first and foremost as zealous, zero-sum, whatever-it-takes activists. The Constitutional republic came later once the founding fathers seized sufficient power to dictate American society on their terms.
As for the French revolution, what if the American loyalists had stayed to fight a civil war to keep their homes distinct from the King’s counter-insurgency? They wouldn’t have won against the superior activism of the founding fathers, but how vicious might have the founding fathers turned then?
America was an activist enterprise before it could be a Constitutional republic. In that fundamental sense, the Left is more American than the Right.
Activism founded the American nation. In the tradition of the nation’s founding, the Left is using activism to transform the nation. Activism is needed for the Right to take the nation back and preserve it.
To win the ideals and norms that mainstream conservatives wish for their posterity, they must compete for it against all comers, including the Left and alt-Right. The only way for the Right to compete for them is the full collective adoption of Marxist-method activism everywhere in the arena.
But there is no need to go beyond the Constitution if those in office just do the few simple things they already have the power to do:
1. Regular order with budgets (power of the purse in Congress, and so on).
2. Eliminate government programs–at least start with something small.
3. Reduce some functions of the federal government, and have them taken over by state & local governments.
4. Competent investigations & prosecutions where there is clear wrong-doing (Lois Lerner & the IRS, Hillary and the e-mail server, plus Benghazi), and contempt of Congress or impeachment for stonewalling. If there’s an actual cost, then behavior on the Left will improve.
5. State governors who take the initiative to point out federal incompetence or wrong-doing & demand change.
6. Take charge of an issue and put your message out and don’t back down, whether it’s a policy like immigration, where we have to consider the cost and long-term consequences, or the character of a political adversary, like Hillary Clinton–just every day point out that she is a liar and corrupt.
Eric,
You are right that we need more activism starting at the local level. Conservatives need to put pressure on their congressman on issues that are important to their area and not just go along with cronyism. They need to thoroughly vet candidates they support and not jump on Christine O’Donnell bandwagons because she says what they want to hear. They need to really study issues and figure out long-term strategies rather than pretending that utopia will appear if Trump is elected. They need to encourage the Fiorinos to come up with ideas for down sizing government agencies and highlight local solutions to problems that work better and more efficiently than federal monstrosities. They ned to find a way to highlight the contibutions of locals who come up with creative ideas rather than just giving in to the prevailing wisdom of the schools of education and social sciences. Instead of pretending that their conservative ideology and talking points will solve all problems and fighting with the left at that level, they need to find ways to make people question what they have always heard.
Activism takes serious thinking and work. I used to read more comments sections oon various sites, but I’ve cut back a lot because the trolls on both sides have overtaken srious thinking.
I think we ought to follow the Constitution. First, repeal all the EO’s as Cruz wants to do. Second, promise to veto any continuing resolutions on the budget. Third, on those bills that fund departments not listed in Article I, Section 8, like Education, veto them on 10th Amendment grounds, and if Congress overrides, sue Congress on 10th Amendment grounds. At least we’ll find out if the 10th means anything. Tell the states that if they want the money that goes with those departments, they’ll have to raise their own taxes to get it. Is this politically possible? Who knows.
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.” —Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.
This article reminded me of an Andrew Klavan classic:
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/10/08/on-being-the-good-guys/
David Aitken is onto something. Harry Reid was no stranger to The Framers. They thought about him at length, and filled the Constitution with “Break Glass and pull Emergency Lever” stations. So let’s show ’em what the document can really do.
I find myself wondering…if our Constitution incubated and grew in the bosom of Western Civilization, and Western Civilization developed within Christianity, and Progressives have been gutting Christianity for quite some time now, and Western Civilization is in decline everywhere, is it even possible to restore the US Constitution?
I’m thinking about John Adams’ famous quote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And by religious, he meant Christian.
I’m leaning towards agreeing with Adams. Unless there is a corresponding “Great Awakening”, I don’t see how the Constitution can be restored. And I certainly don’t see any great revival beginning in America.
Waidmann
“Okay, so tell me: how would that look? What would be set aside?”
exactly… what.. exactly are they talking about.
Appointing conservative justices to the courts is not extra constitutional… either is it if the justices decide to change precedent direction on past lefty victories.
Trying to get some leftists out of the civil service isn’t against the constitution either… ditto shutting down some exec agencies all togeather (or cutting back their mandates).
If they mean rule by executive decision; we’d probably be happy just to undo most of Obama’s…
Some of this is just cover for Trump’s sloppy speeches / the logic in them…
There is of course a difference between trying to fundamentally transform a country by creating a republic of virtue and combating a political force within its institutions, without seeking to transform the country. The lines on such enterprises can blur, but they do help create focus.
Neo, I must point out the spelling error in Arlen Specter’s name. I’ve seen that particular typo (“Spector”) repeated many times at Ace and elsewhere and I’ve acquired a distaste for the frequency with which Rightish blogs are careless about the spellings of the names of our opponents (“John” Huntsman being another common example).
You have a good point about the potential of a Rep Congress and presidency to work together in a way that virtually no one now alive has ever experienced. But frankly, one reason that I favor Cruz is that, if the chips were really down in that desperate sort of way that Greenfield describes, he might be able to play the hard man and make it work. I don’t think Rubio would have it in him, and it’s not clear to me that even Trump would.
In my more unhinged moments, I ask myself this: which of the candidates, if sitting in the Oval Office, could I plausibly envision, in a moment of clear and present necessity, without being influenced by a mere rush of blood, having the stones to pick up a phone and coolly order the NYT shut down outright, for example? That’s my naughty little thought experiment. (I feel a little dirty even talking about it.)
Cruz? Yes.
Trump? He could try, but would he command the respect and gravitas needed to get that order carried out (because it would be a big ask)? Not so sure.
Carson? Fiorina? Rubio? Not based on what I know of them at this time.
If by “liberal open system” is intended the American regime instituted under the Constitution, then it seems we have a fundamental error at hand — for that regime is not open at all, although it is assuredly liberal toward those within it, seeking to maximize their freedom of thought, of property holding, of movement, of action in commerce, of action in politics: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . .”.
No, this is a closed “system”, or the regime of government of a single nation, concerning a distinct people bounded by limits. It does not aim at an openness toward any “international” or “supranational” others, whether other regimes, other peoples, or other institutions: our regime is not “for” them but for the people of this nation alone. Hence, in some respect, the general confusion today regarding immigration into the United States, for some internationalists among us (self-identifying persons and others we can recognize as such who do not self-identify but conceal their intentions) do indeed regard our nation as aiming at such an indeterminate openness to the world as a whole, or seek to make it so and falsely spread such tales concerning our regime. But this is surely a falsehood if attributed to the founding and framing generation and their understanding of the regime they were creating: they had no such illusions (or delusions), no such aspirations for their country. They may well have believed any such design(s) impossible, unthinkable, owing to more solid aspects of human nature — our inescapable erotic nature in particular.
Greenfield summarizes some of the problems very well. His analysis of the left shifting power to institutions it controls is spot on. What he doesn’t mention in this article is the left and Obama’s use of indirection by focusing our attention on what appears to be rather benign policies which mask a deeper and more sinister purpose.
1. His global warming agenda is really an attack on basic human survival. It is anti-human.
2. His Arab Spring policies of supporting democracy were in fact designed to unleash political chaos, otherwise he would have provided the necessary after-revolution support and guidance. We didn’t nuke Japan and then just walk away leaving them to plan revenge or implode into anarchy.
3. Obamacare was subterfuge to destroy private health care.
These three examples could be expanded into many more with the same basic idea. They set up a policy that on the surface looks moral and necessary but the underlying goal is markedly different. Any Republican leader needs the verbal and intellectual know-how to expose this. Someone like Trump who blathers on with “we’ll fix it” or “we’ll be great again” doesn’t have the tools or apparent knowledge to even understand what is at stake.
Reminds me of Pinochet’s situation in Chile.
I’m not sure which part of the Constitution we need to shelve in order to save the country? What is everyone talking about? If you are talking about the false interpretation of the Constitution imposed by left leaning judges, then I’d agree. Overthrowing their rulings would be restoring the constitution not violating it.
I also don’t follow those who claim the Tea Party made a mistake by working through the Republican party. What are you guys thinking? I don’t get it. The Left gained power by taking over the Democrat party. Why shouldn’t we do the same with the Republican party? I was a Tea Party protester from day one, but I think the Tea Party has lost influence because it started to try to organize itself. What began as a mass movement of activists became just another political organization which didn’t necessarily speak for me. The so called establishment in the Republican party are fighting back because the activists are not very cooperative with them and we challenge their power. Primarying out friendly candidates as we have done is bound to create some push-back. We have to expect that and try to understand that people like John Boehner are hurt, they are not evil and they are not the enemy. Junking the Republican party because of this push-back from friends who have been hurt while we are fighting a real enemy – the left – is suicidal.
We have forgotten that the spirit of the law is what was supposed to supress the insuficiency of law to predictate rules that apply in all situations in a reality too complicated to do that in…
once we were allowed to ignore spirit and so on, we could then warp the law to be unsufficient or not liked, as we follow it and cant accept letting go one man who is guilty and are willing to put a dozen men in jail just in case.
but then, wasnt that the argument of Lot and his wife an family when they came to have sex with angels, and he forbade it even offering his daughters?
without that religious lesson we forget the temper that made it work so well.. we then had a fun time negating judges with sentences they could not temper, and then made it more ridiculous by allowing seizure in violation of the constitution but it was ok, as it was against bad evil drug users and dealers…
the constitution is dead..
otherwise, we will find the penumbras to allow us to buy ammo for guns the way privacy gives a penumbra to kill babies and dismantle them for profit… selling parts of children the way a chop shop steals a Mercedes and cuts it apart..
Here’s to suggest we may find useful guidance on these topics in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, (all of it of course), in particular Part VI. Sec. II, Chap. II.: “Of the order in which Societies are by nature recommended to our Beneficence”, Paragraphs 26-43, with special emphasis on Paras. 40-43.
The fact that we habitually speak of a post constitutional era as developing is one thing. The other as you mention, is that the left are inherently opposed, and on what might be described as anthropological principle [their anthropology, their principle], to constitutionalism; especially of the kind described as American Constitutionalism by Dicey, i.e., as a limiting principle to governance and control. Their theory of social life is essentially totalitarian; admitting no boundaries to their fiat, no limits to their sway, and no point of satiety, as I an many others have said till we are all blue in the face.
And I have found, that the few illiberal liberals willing to actually consider the issue, will concede that their view of government is that it is essentially a limitless exercise in social – and hence population – engineering. Darwinian competition by the rules acceptable to mild, but ruthless men.
Conservative rank and file, as you point out, are or have until recently been, (and despite all the Thatcher and Reagan emphasis on founding ideas) either oblivious, or too afraid to look the beast they confront in the face. This, partly because of religious commitments, and partly lest they be forced to notice their own son or daughter or neighbor, gazing dully at them as a “resource”, and licking its chops.
“Freedom Matters More …”
I think I’ll have some bumper stickers printed up. All I need is a vehicle junky enough to bear all the keying …
“the constitution is dead..”
Which gave up the ghost first? You or it? And which is supposed to be upheld by which?
The Civil War was an example of a temporary elimination of the Constitution. The Texas war of independence, the American Revolution, and the Glorious Revolution were similar events where rule of law was re-established after non-constitutional means were applied.
DNW, we have drifted away from a truly constitutional system, in large degree starting in the ’30s. But now we see a much greater break down of rule of law, due to the federal government and Obama administration. The media and educational system are a large part of the problem but in the final analysis the culture is the deciding factor.
DonS:
Wars are wars, which is a different beast entirely; it is understand that actual hot wars sometimes require suspension of certain aspects of due process. Nor was “the Constitution” “eliminated” during the Civil War, not by a longshot. Same for the wars of independence (and of course, there was no Constitution during the American Revolution).
Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus (to which I assume you are referring) was specific to the war, and meant to be limited to it. However, even Lincoln realized that he had unleashed a beast (albeit a limited one) that could be very dangerous:
Here’s the power of the Constitution under which Lincoln believed he was acting:
It was an actual Civil War (rebellion), which—rhetoric on blogs to the contrary—we are not facing now. Plus, there were grave dangers in Lincoln’s doing what he did, and the outcome could have gone otherwise, had more tyrannically inclined people been in charge.
I agree with Waidmann. Essentially, I think it is too late.
Without commenting on the possible interpretive details and implications, I think it is worth pointing out that what kind of associative predicate is assumed to exist outside of an explicitly constitutional contract differs significantly both among and within conservative and illiberal groupings.
Conservative Christians and leftists both seem to imagine that some kind of common humanity moral obligation – and one not just a bare bones negative rights deduction from natural law implications. but one entailing obligations of intra-specific support and “solidarity” (hack and spit) – somehow continues to exist.
Break the contract and, mirabile dictu, we still have a contract!
Ah, that is when they find it convenient, of course. Otherwise they would be happy to massacre you too.
Yes, I agree. Some people are apparently not fitted by either temperament or capacity, to enjoy (in a kind of technical sense) self-government.
That I don’t guess is the live question. The question is whether those who might be, can face it, and figure out how to deal with it so as to assure the best possible outcome for all involved.
Assuming of course, an outcome witha distributive benefit is in fact possible.
Illiberals obviously don’t believe it is. Liberty anywhere, is to them, injustice everywhere, and they cannot abide it. That is why it is so necessary for them to import a replacement population for the “Neanderthals” they see here.
RealClearPolitics has an interactive tool that allows for simulating different election scenarios for 2016. It suggests Republicans would win the popular vote and Electoral College if they took 3.3 percent more than Romney from whites – even if everything else about the party’s performance stays the same.
Demographics and the 2016 Election Scenarios
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html
I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
if you read Toward a Feminist Theory of the State and Catherine Mckinnon a constitutional lawyer, she wants to remove the first amendment as it allows for pornography… another group of feminists thinks its ok to bring prostitutes to school on days to show kids career choices. twerking a professional thing i guess
but think of when the colleges went to crap. .pre 1968 or post feminims?
Her 1993 book, Only Words, proselytised for this view, opposing the US constitution’s first amendment interpretation of pornography as protected speech. MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words”, but also one with real power – notably, to cause the rape and murder of women.
That which destroys the order in favor of communism is put forth, other women are not real women, families should not exist, men should be exterminated till there are only a few, and on and on.
the vast majoirty of women have no idea of the tenets and goals of what they support… even if they dont support it overtly, they support it by not opposing it
Toward a Feminist Theory of the State is a 1989 book about feminist political theory by Catharine MacKinnon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_a_Feminist_Theory_of_the_State
MacKinnon takes Marxism as the theory’s point of departure….Marxism and feminism provide accounts of the way social arrangements of patterned and cumulative disparity can be internally rational and systematic yet unjust. Both are theories of power, its social derivations and its maldistribution. Both are theories of social inequality. In unequal societies, gender and with it sexual desire and kinship structures, like value and with it acquisitiveness and the forms of property ownership, are considered presocial, part of the natural world, primordial or magical or aboriginal. As Marxism exposes value as social creation, feminism exposes desire as socially relational, internally necessary to unequal social orders but historically contingent
if your not against it your for it
It’s obvious that the left has won or essentially won. That’s not to say that there aren’t very large cohorts of people who support founding principles. The key issue is how do we get the Republican/Conservative elites to fight. Even if they don’t abandon the Constitution to restore the Constitution, they still need to fight. Fight long and hard.
The only thing the grassroots can do is to continue to push hard on the elites. But no expectations come with this. In fact Rodham may well be the next President and the country will suffer greatly as a result.
As Churchill said:
“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
Neo, My comments are less than precise since I’m not skilled at pecking at my iPhone. I would argue that the constitution was more violated during the Civil War than was legally admitted.
Yes, wars are different but still politics. The Glorious Revolution was a rebellion but not much of a war. My point is that rule of law can be suspended for a duration and returned to.
I do think we are polarized between those who believe in limited government and those who believe in unlimited government and we won’t find common ground.
DNW, in the English and American rebellions I listed, atrocities were uncommon and in the aftermath rule of law was quickly re-established. Contrast with the French and Russian revolutions. The difference is due to culture. I wonder how the current culture will act. I think the IRS scandal, John Doe raids, Fast & Furious, private email server, etc. show at least one side has no use for rule of law and will purge its enemies if it can.
According to EO 13603, the President, or the head of any federal agency that he shall designate, can conscript “persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation,” in both “peacetime and times of national emergency.”