This may come as a shock to some, but the United States was not intended to be a democracy. In fact, there are a number of very undemocratic features in the original U.S. Constitution. Senators, for example, were not directly elected by the public until the 20th Century. Instead, they were chosen by the state legislatures. Likewise, there is no constitutional requirement that Electors for president be chosen by popular vote; indeed the legislatures of each state have the power to appoint electors in any way they so choose. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the candidate who received each state's electoral votes was decided by the legislature, not the state's citizens. The only national election that voters participated in was the election for their district representative, otherwise, voting was reserved for electing state legislators and governors. While this may seem odd to modern Americans, most of the federal government was completely insulated from the average citizen.
What may be even more shocking is the fact that this setup was designed to protect liberty, not curtail it. While at first this statement appears counter-intuitive, a brief analysis proves it to be the case. The simplest definition of pure democracy is "rule by the majority," meaning that the law is whatever 50% +1 of the electorate say it is. Perhaps a more accurate description of pure democracy is "mob rule." In a pure democracy, there is no guarantee of rights or liberties, because a majority has the ability to change the game at any time. One of my favorite quotes with regard to democracy comes from Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
Instead of a democracy, the United States' founders established the nation as a Constitutional Republic, meaning that the nation was founded with the recognition of certain inalienable rights, and a very limited set of powers delegated to the government, which are discharged via duly elected representatives and a non-monarch executive. The key differences between our Republic and a pure democracy are that the Republic recognizes the rights of the individual, and stipulates that they cannot be infringed upon by the will of the majority, along with the fact that the powers of the government are limited and clearly spelled out.
Unfortunately, over the past 200+ years, political elites have managed to sell the public on the idea that democracy is superior, and many of the Constitutional protections that were once in place no longer exist. While the expansion of sufferage and direct election may seem to have given the average citizen more control of government, what has in fact happened is that Americans are now more than ever subject to the tyranny of the majority, and government has used this shift to effectively buy a majority of the vote. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." Before Shaw, Franklin also warned of such a development: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
When I mentioned in my post yesterday that "...in a truly libertarian society (as opposed to a mob-rule democracy), the winners of elections have very little power over others, and therefore the drive to dump money into elections tends to evaporate," this is what I was referring to. I do not believe in democracy so much as I believe in a government grounded in the rule of law that respects the individual and his God-given rights. In the former, if 51% believe that the rich should be robbed blind to pay for the foolish exploits of an immoral government, that is what will happen. In the latter, the government protects the private property rights of the wealthy (along with everyone else) from the foolish mob who wishes to rob them blind.
Don't fall for the ruse that liberty and democracy are somehow intertwined. Instead, demand that your God-given rights as an individual (life, liberty, and property) be respected no matter what percentage of your countrymen line up at your front door with torches and pitchforks in their hands.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Fair is Where You Buy Cotton Candy
In response to my post regarding Buckley v. Valeo, a reader brought up the concept of electoral fairness. Specifically, his argument centered around the fact that if there were no campaign finance restrictions, it would be unfair, since those with more money could buy more media time, and potentially have more influence over electoral results than someone with no money to donate to their chosen candidate.
Fairness is something that Americans tend to be very passionate about; Buckley v. Valeo may be a fairly obscure topic for those not well-versed in political discourse, but the idea of fairness has come up more times in political discussions than I can count. In general, Americans tend to be very concerned about people not getting a fair shake; this may well descend from our position in the Revolution as underdogs, or perhaps it is just a normal component of a properly functioning human psyche. In any case, it is there.
Unfortunately, one of the corruptions that has occurred in our collective ability to reason is the replacement of equality of outcome for intrinsic equality. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," he was saying that all men are intrinsically equal; all men are created in the Imago Dei (image of God), and therefore are entitled to certain inalienable rights. Locke described those rights as "Life, Liberty, and Property," while Jefferson modified it to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These arguments were meant to mean that all men, being created equal, should not be subject to another, and should be free to do as they see fit. The shift, however, has been to conclude that 'equality' means that we are all entitled to the same outcome at the end. This shift is what has given us welfare, lowered university entrance standards, affirmative action, speech codes, and campaign finance law, among myriad other things. All of these things have two things in common; they are intended to produce equal outcomes among people, and far more ominously, they are all oppressively authoritarian.
It's the second commonality that I want to focus on, and to argue against the concept of 'fairness.' The truth is, when left to their own devices, people's outcomes will differ. In "Liberty Results in Inequality," I discussed this fact at length, but the bottom line is that people have different levels of drive, desire, and ability, which results in different outcomes. The fact is, it is not possible to lift everyone to the top tier; the only way to level outcomes is to punish those who are more successful than others. Therefore, the only way to make things 'fair' - if by this term we mean equal outcome, is for one group (those in charge) to place limitations on the liberty of the most successful, effectively dragging them down to the same level as those who are naturally on the bottom. Therefore, what you have to do in order to make things 'fair' is to violate what Locke and Jefferson argued - you have to make the most successful subject to the least successful (or at least to their enablers in power). What results is a net loss of liberty (as well as a general loss for the population at large, since everyone tends to benefit when the best and brightest are left alone to create and innovate).
Bottom line, you cannot have both liberty and equality of outcome; you have to decide which is better, keeping in mind that choosing equality of outcome means that you hand power over to political elites to choose winners and losers.
Oh, and in specific response to the electoral fairness argument, I pointed out that in a truly libertarian society (as opposed to a mob-rule democracy), the winners of elections have very little power over others, and therefore the drive to dump money into elections tends to evaporate.
And finally, thanks to my wife for the headline. She's clearly been listening to my insanity for far too long.
Fairness is something that Americans tend to be very passionate about; Buckley v. Valeo may be a fairly obscure topic for those not well-versed in political discourse, but the idea of fairness has come up more times in political discussions than I can count. In general, Americans tend to be very concerned about people not getting a fair shake; this may well descend from our position in the Revolution as underdogs, or perhaps it is just a normal component of a properly functioning human psyche. In any case, it is there.
Unfortunately, one of the corruptions that has occurred in our collective ability to reason is the replacement of equality of outcome for intrinsic equality. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," he was saying that all men are intrinsically equal; all men are created in the Imago Dei (image of God), and therefore are entitled to certain inalienable rights. Locke described those rights as "Life, Liberty, and Property," while Jefferson modified it to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These arguments were meant to mean that all men, being created equal, should not be subject to another, and should be free to do as they see fit. The shift, however, has been to conclude that 'equality' means that we are all entitled to the same outcome at the end. This shift is what has given us welfare, lowered university entrance standards, affirmative action, speech codes, and campaign finance law, among myriad other things. All of these things have two things in common; they are intended to produce equal outcomes among people, and far more ominously, they are all oppressively authoritarian.
It's the second commonality that I want to focus on, and to argue against the concept of 'fairness.' The truth is, when left to their own devices, people's outcomes will differ. In "Liberty Results in Inequality," I discussed this fact at length, but the bottom line is that people have different levels of drive, desire, and ability, which results in different outcomes. The fact is, it is not possible to lift everyone to the top tier; the only way to level outcomes is to punish those who are more successful than others. Therefore, the only way to make things 'fair' - if by this term we mean equal outcome, is for one group (those in charge) to place limitations on the liberty of the most successful, effectively dragging them down to the same level as those who are naturally on the bottom. Therefore, what you have to do in order to make things 'fair' is to violate what Locke and Jefferson argued - you have to make the most successful subject to the least successful (or at least to their enablers in power). What results is a net loss of liberty (as well as a general loss for the population at large, since everyone tends to benefit when the best and brightest are left alone to create and innovate).
Bottom line, you cannot have both liberty and equality of outcome; you have to decide which is better, keeping in mind that choosing equality of outcome means that you hand power over to political elites to choose winners and losers.
Oh, and in specific response to the electoral fairness argument, I pointed out that in a truly libertarian society (as opposed to a mob-rule democracy), the winners of elections have very little power over others, and therefore the drive to dump money into elections tends to evaporate.
And finally, thanks to my wife for the headline. She's clearly been listening to my insanity for far too long.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
2000 and Counting
Just noticed that Bumper Sticker Paradigm crossed the 2000 hit mark today. I've really enjoyed being able to flesh out my political and philosophical viewpoints here, and appreciate you all for stopping by to see what this crazy libertarian has to say. So thanks, and if you enjoy reading what I have to say, don't worry, there's plenty more coming!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Buckley V. Valeo - Constitutional and Philosophical Arguments
By request, a breakdown on the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the resulting Supreme Court Case, and the issues surrounding both...
In 1971, Congress passed, and President Nixon signed, the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was subsequently amended in 1974. This law, among other things, limited the amounts that individuals and groups could contribute to political campaigns, and limited the amount that candidates for office could spend on their campaigns. You can read the full text of the law as it exists today here.
In 1975, Senator James L. Buckley of New York, along with others, filed suit against Francis R. Valeo, ex officio member of the Federal Elections Commission, claiming that the Act violated their 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression, along with their 5th Amendment right to due process.
The resulting Supreme Court case, Buckley V. Valeo, set the precedent for campaign finance law, and therefore remains extremely important with regards to how current campaign finance law is structured. In the decision, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the rights of those who finance campaigns, and those who are candidates in campaigns. With regards to candidates, the Court found that restrictions on expenditures represented a significant limit to expression, since modern communication relies on radio, television, and public appearances, all of which require the candidate to spend money. Therefore, the restrictions on a candidate's ability to spend money represented a significant limitation to their 1st Amendment rights, and this section of the Act was deemed unconstitutional. The result is that a candidate for public office has absolutely no limit on how much they can spend campaigning.
With respect to contributions, the Court found that the mere act of contributing to a candidate's campaign signified sufficient support for the candidate, and that limiting the amount that could be contributed to said campaign did not diminish the expression of support. Therefore, the limitations on contributions were upheld as constitutional.
Criticism of this decision has come from both sides. Some critics contend that the decision was too lenient, since unlimited expenditures provide candidates with deep pockets an opportunity to bury their opponents with advertising, while critics of limitations on contributions contend that the limitation on contributions effectively limits the amount of political expression that a passionate supporter of a particular candidate can make.
There is an important distinction between these two criticisms, though. Those who criticize Buckley because they believe that limitations on campaign contributions limit political speech are making a Constitutional argument. Their claim that limitations on contributions constitute a limitation of political speech is a claim that the law violates the First Amendment, which is the supreme law with respect to speech. In the Buckley decision, the Court acknowledged this concern, but ruled that since the quantity of money given does not directly effect the donor's expression of support for the candidate, the limitation on contributions does not restrict political expression. This answer would actually be satisfactory, were it not for the fact that according to the Act a private citizen cannot spend unlimited funds to promote a candidate on their own. For example, if I make a television ad promoting a candidate's campaign, then pay to air said ad, the value of what I put into that advertising goes against my individual contribution limit for that candidate. Since this activity is exactly the same as that which the Court found the First Amendment protected with respect to the candidate himself, it seems incongruous to find that such protection does not extend to other citizens.
In contrast, the critics who claim that unlimited campaign expenditures are unfair are making a philosophical argument, but one that does not have backing in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no guarantee of 'fairness' in elections, expression, or any other topic it touches on. Interestingly, this criticism effectively amounts to a complaint that the Court did not go far enough in limiting political expression, and should have placed limitations on a candidate's ability to promote their candidacy, which would be a direct violation of the First Amendment protection of political speech. Therefore, criticism from this side does not have constitutional backing, and is an argument based on a preference for the way things ought to be, not on the way the Constitution actually reads.
So, should Buckley be overturned? In a word, yes. The decision, along with the Act upon which it is based, seems to place a restriction on individual political expression that is at odds with the First Amendment.
Also at issue here is the foundation for the arguments against Buckley, which are as important, or perhaps more so, than the discussion of the decision itself, and reveal a lot about how different perspectives are as regards government's role in life. On one hand, the decision was criticized because it curtailed liberty, the freedom to do as one wishes with his money, and violated the rule of law. On the other hand, the decision was criticized because government wasn't doing enough to make the outcome fair. It is a classic example of the dichotomy that exists in this country between those who want to be left alone, and those who see government activism as a solution to what they view as society's ills.
In 1971, Congress passed, and President Nixon signed, the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was subsequently amended in 1974. This law, among other things, limited the amounts that individuals and groups could contribute to political campaigns, and limited the amount that candidates for office could spend on their campaigns. You can read the full text of the law as it exists today here.
In 1975, Senator James L. Buckley of New York, along with others, filed suit against Francis R. Valeo, ex officio member of the Federal Elections Commission, claiming that the Act violated their 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression, along with their 5th Amendment right to due process.
The resulting Supreme Court case, Buckley V. Valeo, set the precedent for campaign finance law, and therefore remains extremely important with regards to how current campaign finance law is structured. In the decision, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between the rights of those who finance campaigns, and those who are candidates in campaigns. With regards to candidates, the Court found that restrictions on expenditures represented a significant limit to expression, since modern communication relies on radio, television, and public appearances, all of which require the candidate to spend money. Therefore, the restrictions on a candidate's ability to spend money represented a significant limitation to their 1st Amendment rights, and this section of the Act was deemed unconstitutional. The result is that a candidate for public office has absolutely no limit on how much they can spend campaigning.
With respect to contributions, the Court found that the mere act of contributing to a candidate's campaign signified sufficient support for the candidate, and that limiting the amount that could be contributed to said campaign did not diminish the expression of support. Therefore, the limitations on contributions were upheld as constitutional.
Criticism of this decision has come from both sides. Some critics contend that the decision was too lenient, since unlimited expenditures provide candidates with deep pockets an opportunity to bury their opponents with advertising, while critics of limitations on contributions contend that the limitation on contributions effectively limits the amount of political expression that a passionate supporter of a particular candidate can make.
There is an important distinction between these two criticisms, though. Those who criticize Buckley because they believe that limitations on campaign contributions limit political speech are making a Constitutional argument. Their claim that limitations on contributions constitute a limitation of political speech is a claim that the law violates the First Amendment, which is the supreme law with respect to speech. In the Buckley decision, the Court acknowledged this concern, but ruled that since the quantity of money given does not directly effect the donor's expression of support for the candidate, the limitation on contributions does not restrict political expression. This answer would actually be satisfactory, were it not for the fact that according to the Act a private citizen cannot spend unlimited funds to promote a candidate on their own. For example, if I make a television ad promoting a candidate's campaign, then pay to air said ad, the value of what I put into that advertising goes against my individual contribution limit for that candidate. Since this activity is exactly the same as that which the Court found the First Amendment protected with respect to the candidate himself, it seems incongruous to find that such protection does not extend to other citizens.
In contrast, the critics who claim that unlimited campaign expenditures are unfair are making a philosophical argument, but one that does not have backing in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no guarantee of 'fairness' in elections, expression, or any other topic it touches on. Interestingly, this criticism effectively amounts to a complaint that the Court did not go far enough in limiting political expression, and should have placed limitations on a candidate's ability to promote their candidacy, which would be a direct violation of the First Amendment protection of political speech. Therefore, criticism from this side does not have constitutional backing, and is an argument based on a preference for the way things ought to be, not on the way the Constitution actually reads.
So, should Buckley be overturned? In a word, yes. The decision, along with the Act upon which it is based, seems to place a restriction on individual political expression that is at odds with the First Amendment.
Also at issue here is the foundation for the arguments against Buckley, which are as important, or perhaps more so, than the discussion of the decision itself, and reveal a lot about how different perspectives are as regards government's role in life. On one hand, the decision was criticized because it curtailed liberty, the freedom to do as one wishes with his money, and violated the rule of law. On the other hand, the decision was criticized because government wasn't doing enough to make the outcome fair. It is a classic example of the dichotomy that exists in this country between those who want to be left alone, and those who see government activism as a solution to what they view as society's ills.
Obama: If Congress Doesn't Pass the Legislation I Want, I'll Do It Myself
I'm not entirely sure at this point if Obama even knows how to spell 'Constitution,' let alone uphold it. In an interview with a local station in Colorado Springs, Obama had the following to say about getting the economy going again:
The bottom line is this: Obama has repeatedly shown his contempt for this nation, its people, and its rule of law. Here, he is telegraphing that he feels like he can get away with acting like a monarch. While this is distressing to me, more distressing is the fact that I have no faith that anyone will do anything about it. Americans have become too apathetic, stupid, and lazy to resist what is effectively a seizure of complete power (and if I'm being too harsh, prove me wrong).
I'll close with the following, which is the oath of office that the president is required to make during his inauguration (Article II, Section 1):
"Well, what we're going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill."I'm not even entirely sure where to begin with this, but I'll take a stab at it. First, according to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."Note the word 'All' - it means that the Congress makes the laws. All of them. The President has absolutely no legislative power. None. At all. Not even a little bit. The President doesn't get 'help' from Capitol Hill. They are not a group of advisers or lackeys who are there to do his bidding or suggest what he is supposed to do. In fact, the opposite is the case. According to the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them, effectively making the President Congress' lackey. That's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, we have a narcissistic would-be prince with a messiah complex for a president, meaning that he'll do whatever he wants, and demonize those who disagree with him or try to get in his way. And more unfortunately, we have a mostly ignorant electorate who have absolutely no idea how the government is supposed to work, and even fewer who care.
The bottom line is this: Obama has repeatedly shown his contempt for this nation, its people, and its rule of law. Here, he is telegraphing that he feels like he can get away with acting like a monarch. While this is distressing to me, more distressing is the fact that I have no faith that anyone will do anything about it. Americans have become too apathetic, stupid, and lazy to resist what is effectively a seizure of complete power (and if I'm being too harsh, prove me wrong).
I'll close with the following, which is the oath of office that the president is required to make during his inauguration (Article II, Section 1):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Were we still a nation of laws, Obama would be thrown out of office.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Should We Keep Religion out of Politics?
Today on Andrew Wilkow's radio show, A caller stated that conservatives need to keep their religion and their politics separate. After some back-and-forth, it became obvious that the caller's real beef was with conservatives' objections to gay marriage. Wilkow handled the challenge quite well; one of his responses was to ask the caller if he would likewise implore homosexuals to keep their sexual preference and politics separate (the caller of course said no).
Every election cycle, this issue comes up, and I must say that it is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever heard, and can only be motivated by a desire to see those you disagree with silenced. The intellectual inconsistency of this argument is fairly simple to demonstrate; all you have to do is ask the person making this argument to completely discard an important part of their worldview, just like Wilkow did, and watch them dissemble and rationalize why they shouldn't have to, but religious people should.
There are two reasons why this is a poor argument. The first reason is pragmatic: if we accept this argument, and if someone wants to make something politically off-limits, all they have to do is label it a religious matter and the political argument is over. Abortion? That's a religious issue and has no place in the public square. Same goes for same-sex marriage, abstinence education, or any other hot-button social issue. If we concede that religion and politics shouldn't mix, then the secularist wins by default.
The second reason is more important, and is more philosophical than pragmatic. Those of us who take our religious beliefs seriously have them closely integrated into our worldview; everything about how we see the world is viewed through this lens, because we believe that on a metaphysical level, our faith is just as real as the things we can see, smell, or touch. And, since politics is the method via which we attempt to impact our government, it makes sense that religious individuals would be influenced by their religious beliefs when attempting to impact their government. In fact, any other outcome is not possible for those who take their faith seriously.
This is not to say that all religious people will attempt to force their moral viewpoints legislatively. I, for one, tend to favor a morally minimalist position as regards government, simply because I belive that liberty as a rule is more important than imposing behavioral rules on those with whom I disagree. Ironically, however, said belief is based wholly on my own worldview, which is heavily informed by my religious beliefs.
Ultimately, the argument that religion and politics should be kept separate is self defeating, because in order to be intellectually consistent, you would have to conclude that everyone has to keep their beliefs out of politics, which would mean you could not consider the merits of the candidates or the issues when voting, which means you might as well pick names out of a phone book to fill the legislature and the Oval Office, and once there, the random selectees would not be allowed to do anything.
Now that I think of it, this might not be a bad idea after all...
Every election cycle, this issue comes up, and I must say that it is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever heard, and can only be motivated by a desire to see those you disagree with silenced. The intellectual inconsistency of this argument is fairly simple to demonstrate; all you have to do is ask the person making this argument to completely discard an important part of their worldview, just like Wilkow did, and watch them dissemble and rationalize why they shouldn't have to, but religious people should.
There are two reasons why this is a poor argument. The first reason is pragmatic: if we accept this argument, and if someone wants to make something politically off-limits, all they have to do is label it a religious matter and the political argument is over. Abortion? That's a religious issue and has no place in the public square. Same goes for same-sex marriage, abstinence education, or any other hot-button social issue. If we concede that religion and politics shouldn't mix, then the secularist wins by default.
The second reason is more important, and is more philosophical than pragmatic. Those of us who take our religious beliefs seriously have them closely integrated into our worldview; everything about how we see the world is viewed through this lens, because we believe that on a metaphysical level, our faith is just as real as the things we can see, smell, or touch. And, since politics is the method via which we attempt to impact our government, it makes sense that religious individuals would be influenced by their religious beliefs when attempting to impact their government. In fact, any other outcome is not possible for those who take their faith seriously.
This is not to say that all religious people will attempt to force their moral viewpoints legislatively. I, for one, tend to favor a morally minimalist position as regards government, simply because I belive that liberty as a rule is more important than imposing behavioral rules on those with whom I disagree. Ironically, however, said belief is based wholly on my own worldview, which is heavily informed by my religious beliefs.
Ultimately, the argument that religion and politics should be kept separate is self defeating, because in order to be intellectually consistent, you would have to conclude that everyone has to keep their beliefs out of politics, which would mean you could not consider the merits of the candidates or the issues when voting, which means you might as well pick names out of a phone book to fill the legislature and the Oval Office, and once there, the random selectees would not be allowed to do anything.
Now that I think of it, this might not be a bad idea after all...
Missing the Point and Intellectual Inconsistency
I don't listen to Glenn Beck's radio program, so I missed this, but apparently Beck's libertarian side has won out, and he stated today on his show that he would consider voting for a third-party Ron Paul candidacy over voting for Newt Gingrich. Such a scenario is entirely possible; Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, after all.
In reaction to this revelation, Ace over at AOSHQ had the following to say:
The thing that I find very interesting about Ace's treatment of Beck's announcement is that he did exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. In a post discussing a Ron Paul ad attacking Gingrich's serial hypocrisy, Ace makes the following statement:
In reaction to this revelation, Ace over at AOSHQ had the following to say:
"Apparently some among us talk a good game about the crucial need of removing Obama from office, but sort of have a kind of Battered Wife Syndrome, and just can't quit the big lug."Since I happen to agree with Beck, and think that Ace is treating this position unfairly, I'll throw my two cents in. First, like Beck, my first and foremost purpose is not to get Obama out of office. Sure, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster as president, but we didn't just wake up one morning with a Marxist as president. The United States has been stumbling toward authoritarian socialism for over a century, and Obama is basically just the logical outcome of the direction we were already heading. What we need as a nation is to return to the Constitutional principles of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. Newt Gingrich is a big-government plutocrat, and I have no faith that he will do anything to take the U.S. in the correct direction. Therefore, it really doesn't matter to me if he is president instead of Obama. Things may be a little bit better with a Gingrich administration, but not enough to avert the upcoming disaster that big-government socialism is going to bring us. Second, as I have made clear in my conversations with friends and family, I am tired of the 'pragmatic' arguments. Political centrists and pragmatists tell conservatives and libertarians every election cycle that we simply must support the moderate candidate, because they are the only one that is 'electable.' However, all that this pragmatism has gotten us is a steady slide ever leftward. Every Republican administration since FDR (with the possible exception of Reagan), has been just a little bit to the left of the previous one, and every time we are told to swallow this bitter pill because it's the only way to stop the progressive onslaught. The problem is, with our capitulation in the name of pragmatism, the progressives have won every time. I, for one, will no longer play the game. This is one of the major reasons that I left the Republican fold and registered Libertarian. The way I see it, I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me. Therefore, if I do not find a major-party candidate that I find suitably represents my views with respect to economic sanity and personal liberty, then I will vote third-party, and the GOP can kiss my ass. This doesn't mean, as Ace implies, that Beck or I have a desire to see Obama re-elected due to Stockholm Syndrome, it means that we don't believe that the GOP is serious about undoing the damage that Obama has done. They have made it fairly clear over the last few election cycles that what they really want to be is the other party of big government. That's fine, but they can do it without me.
The thing that I find very interesting about Ace's treatment of Beck's announcement is that he did exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. In a post discussing a Ron Paul ad attacking Gingrich's serial hypocrisy, Ace makes the following statement:
Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time," I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever.Apparently, Beck refusing to vote for Gingrich is an unforgivable sin, prompting one of Ace's commenters to go so far as to refer to him as a "Fucking Mormon alcoholic," but Ace's refusal to vote for Ron Paul, even if it means another four years of Obama, is principled. Exactly how this amounts to anything more than cognitive dissonance masquerading as enlightened discourse is left as an exercise for the reader.
That's where I'm coming form. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik "We brought 9/11 ourselves" pacifist Chomnskyite crank.
And I'll say it: I will, yes, be amenable to Barack Obama being re-elected under those circumstances. As members of the Purity Brigade used to tell me-- Sometimes you win by losing.
Monday, December 5, 2011
What the Constitution Represents
I write a lot about how this or that government action is unconstitutional, and in my arguments, I frequently reference the Constitutional nature of a law or government action as an argument either for or against said action, almost like I would reference scripture in a religious argument. I want to make it clear that I do not view those two examples as equal. I do not see the Constitution as canon, to be adhered to like a person adheres to their religious texts. In fact, like many of the founders, I see a lot of flaws in our organizing document. I think that there were far too many loopholes deliberately left in it by men like Alexander Hamilton, who left them there with the intent of exploiting them for federal power later. My own political philosophy is much closer to Thomas Jefferson's, who saw the Constitution as far too authoritarian for his liking.
That being said, there is a reason that I refer so often to this flawed document. I refer to it because it represents the supreme law of the land. It is the law upon which all other federal activity is supposed to be based. And, in the event that it is determined that the Constitution is lacking, it contains within itself the remedy, in the form of the amendment process, by which any provision in the document can be modified.
The reason that this is important is that the Constitution represents the rule of law. John Adams once stated that the United States was a "nation of laws, not of men," meaning that we held the law to be supreme, not the whims of a tyrant. Adams was comparing the United States under the Constitution to the United Kingdom, where the king's word was law. To be a nation of laws is to be a nation where every man, from street-sweeper to President, is held to the same legal standard.
Over the past two centuries, the federal government has expanded to the point where it controls a staggering amount of Americans' lives. In 1789, the federal government was more or less invisible to the average American; today it tells you what kind of light bulbs you can use and the type of toilet you have to have in your bathroom. Over the course of this expansion, the Constitution has been amended exactly 27 times; none of which refer to bathroom fixtures. What this means is that we have decided to ignore the Constitution, meaning that we have decided that the rule of law is not important.
We are a nation of men, not of laws...
That being said, there is a reason that I refer so often to this flawed document. I refer to it because it represents the supreme law of the land. It is the law upon which all other federal activity is supposed to be based. And, in the event that it is determined that the Constitution is lacking, it contains within itself the remedy, in the form of the amendment process, by which any provision in the document can be modified.
The reason that this is important is that the Constitution represents the rule of law. John Adams once stated that the United States was a "nation of laws, not of men," meaning that we held the law to be supreme, not the whims of a tyrant. Adams was comparing the United States under the Constitution to the United Kingdom, where the king's word was law. To be a nation of laws is to be a nation where every man, from street-sweeper to President, is held to the same legal standard.
Over the past two centuries, the federal government has expanded to the point where it controls a staggering amount of Americans' lives. In 1789, the federal government was more or less invisible to the average American; today it tells you what kind of light bulbs you can use and the type of toilet you have to have in your bathroom. Over the course of this expansion, the Constitution has been amended exactly 27 times; none of which refer to bathroom fixtures. What this means is that we have decided to ignore the Constitution, meaning that we have decided that the rule of law is not important.
We are a nation of men, not of laws...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)