Archives

You are currently viewing archive for October 2007
From the Concord Monitor:

"John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes."

More Edwards as reported in the Monitor:

"...the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called College for Everyone."

Full article here.

Although the candidate conjures the image of FDR, as I have noted before, John Edwards is much more reminiscent of Huey P. Long, the "radical egalitarian" governor of Louisiana during the 1930s.

Emerging as a national figure with presidential aspirations during the Great Depression, the "Kingfish" promised to "Share the Wealth" and make "every man a king" by confiscating the large personal fortunes amassed in America through exploitation and unfair advantages of birth and redistributing them to the people.

Long promised reduced working hours, comfortable minimum salaries, and college for everyone.

My suggestion for the Edwards Campaign Theme Song:

Why weep or slumber America
Land of brave and true
With castles and clothing and food for all
All belongs to you.

Ev'ry man a king, ev'ry man a king,
For you can be a millionaire.
But there's something belonging to others
There's enough for all people to share.
When it's sunny June and December too
Or in the winter time or spring
There'll be peace without end
Ev'ry neighbor a friend,
With ev'ry man a king.
Today the Administration made sure the nation saw that it was working hard to respond well to the fires in California. Well-publicized people on site, a cabinet meeting linked to the scene, statements to the press. I have no doubt FEMA will do a good job doing what it does. This Republican administration knows that the criticisms it took after Katrina hit New Orleans hurt it, and that a perception that Bush failed California would hurt the Republican nominee in 08.

Two points:

First, the criticism of the Federal response to Katrina has been unfair. Compare Mississippi and Louisiana. Same hurricane. Same FEMA. Things went much better in Mississippi. And also in Florida in the aftermath of their hurricane. The difference: the Democratic governments of New Orleans and of Louisiana. Can you say "Corrupt and Incompetent"? I can believe that the state of California will handle their end of the affair much better than Louisiana. I think the Administration will do well by them. We'll know by the lack of stories on failure in the MSM.

Second, everybody seems to be expecting the Feds to come to the rescue. I have heard no questions at all raised as to whether the fires and subsequent damage are actually within the responsibilities of the Federal Government. State and local governments, and the public, automatically turn to Washington. Is this a good thing?
When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens.

Some corollaries: the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining a good economy so that citizens have jobs and income; for those citizens who are not prospering economically it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide for their needs; since a college education is seen as a ticket to greater well-being, the Federal Government will provide financing to institutions and to students (student loans); good health is essential to well-being so the Federal Government will ensure that everyone has insurance, or, provide affordable health-care, and to prevent citizens from damaging their own health, will take steps to discourage smoking and obesity; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The Democrats have had this core value for Domestic Policy since FDR's New Deal, policies to implement this value are in place (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for the Interstate Highway System), and while taxpayers may complain the same taxpayers will not give up the fruits of this core value such as Federal money for large lakes, highway bridges, guaranteed student loans, or Social Security.

What of the Republican core value? (more below)

» Read More

Post here from Powerline.

Who is today's most ruthless politician who acts as though the ends always justify the means and seeks to destroy political opponents? Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another Nixon.

Remember the use of FBI files? The smear attacks on women who accused Bill of misconduct? The assertion that a conspiracy existed to destroy the Clintons?

Where have we seen ruthlessness, paranoia, and identification of personal ambition with national good? Oh yes, Richard Nixon. Perhaps I should start calling Hillary Tricky Dick.
"The [Founders] would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787."

So says Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" as quoted in the LA Times--full article here.

It is hard to imagine anyone other than a political scientist presuming, with such authority and absolute certainty, to speak for the founders concerning modern politics.

According to Professor Sabato, the founders would endorse a long list of changes proposed by--no surprise here--Professor Sabato. How shall all this be accomplished? A 21st century Constitutional Convention.

What historical evidence does Professor Sabato offer to prove his assertion that he is channeling the Spirits of 1787? One lonely voice.

Sabato again:

"Thomas Jefferson, for example, insisted that 'no society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The Earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years' (the length of a generation in Jefferson's time)."

Good enough? Hardly.

1. Thomas Jefferson is a founding father but not a constitutional "framer," which is an important distinction Sabato neglects to mention--much less explain. Inarguably, Jefferson is an American icon and a first-tier member of the founding generation. However, it is necessary to make clear that Jefferson was not a party to the Constitutional Moment. He did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787 of which Sabato makes mention. Jefferson did not contribute to The Federalist, the collection of essays designed to explain and defend the Constitution, and, early on, he was famously less-invested in the Constitution than his good friend and long-time political partner, James Madison, whom we rightly call the Father of the Constitution. It is worth noting that Madison thought this "nineteen-year cycle" of legitimacy complete lunacy.

2. Eventually, even Jefferson came to believe his revolutionary ravings were ill-considered and sheepishly backed away from his initial assertion regarding generational sovereignty.

Another glaring fallacy in Sabato's ham-handed assertion: the history of the United States is very much the story of change over time. We have adapted plenty. We have also added twenty-seven amendments to the handiwork of the framers. I invite Professor Sabato to draft a few more and subject them to public scrutiny and debate.

But a Constitutional Convention?

We should give thanks to Providence that we have not had another Constitutional Convention over the last 220 years. May God in Heaven grant us the wisdom to understand that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

For years I have confessed to my classes my fear that another Constitutional Convention would portend the expedited end to our American experiment in self rule.

Why?

1. The framers of the Constitution met in closed session. We did not know with any degree of accuracy exactly what went on behind those closed doors until the death of all the men present. Amazingly, there were no leaks. They purposely sequestered themselves and kept one another's secrets so that special interests and demagogues could not foist upon the proceedings ill-advised whims, narrow considerations, and popular foolishness.

The next Constitutional Convention will not meet in executive session. The next Constitutional Convention will be a circus--covered wall-to-wall by C-SPAN and CNN and Fox News. Every delegate will harbor personal ambitions greater than his/her desire to form a more perfect union, and he/she inevitably will hold press conferences after every session, playing to the crowds and mugging for the cameras.

This is a formula for an unwieldy, incoherent, and rotten-to-the-core manifesto of political correctness and Beltway legalese.

2. We caught lightening in a bottle in the summer of 1787. We can never hope to equal the brilliance, dedication, and public-mindedness of the 55 men who attended the real Constitutional Convention. Not even if we invited Larry Sabato.