Guest post by Camillus
Camillus, a former Republican Party officer in his home state in the Northeastern United States who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration. M-H
“Restore the Constitution!” It’s a cry, in various iterations, that one commonly hears from the Tea Party. There have been “Restore the Constitution” rallies calling for “restoring the rule of law,” there are “Restore the Constitution” petitions circulating online, and there are “Restore the Constitution” blog sites. Politically, the Tea Party movement portrays itself as the defenders of the Constitution keeping faith with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
This is ironic. A deeper examination of positions held by the Tea Party, particularly regarding the scope of the 10th Amendment, the repeal or modification of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the support for various nullification proposals, reflects a hostility to aspects of the Constitution as well as opposition to well-established principles in our Constitutional jurisprudence. In the end, the vision of our Constitution expressed by the Tea Party movement is often fundamentally at odds with that of many of our leading Founders, including Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and Madison (prior to his 1791 break with Hamilton).
A telling omission: The Tea Party and the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment features prominently in the Constitutionalism of the Tea Party. It provides that: “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.” To the Tea Party, the 10th Amendment is a forgotten (or ignored) restriction limiting the powers of the federal government to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. What is actually ignored is the history of the 10th Amendment. During the debates in Congress over what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, James Madison successfully defeated a motion to add the word “expressly”- as in “the powers not expressly delegated”- to the 10th Amendment, because, in his words, “it [is] impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication.” Ignoring Madison’s logic, the Tea Party would write the word “expressly” back into the 10th Amendment though its narrow interpretation.
The Tea Party’s vision of the 10th Amendment also ignores the jurisprudential legacy of one of our earliest, and most consequential, Chief Justices- John Marshall. According to public television reporter Chris Satullo, “John Marshall, as much as any man save for the great James Madison, determined what our founding charter really meant, and did so in ways that enabled the American experiment to thrive.” In this regard, note that “thriving” is inextricably intertwined with a vigorous and capable federal government.
Fundamentally, Marshall:
“[I]interpreted the Constitution in a way opposite to the Tea Partiers and libertarians who now cite the 10th Amendment as cause to roll back the clock to 1850.
Marshall led the Supreme Court over 34 years, deciding the key cases that established the court as an equal branch and shaped the role of the federal government.
One of those cases is McCulloch v. Maryland. Apparently the Tea Partiers now carrying on about the 10th Amendment never heard of McCulloch or think it wrongly decided…
Tea Partiers today insist, following their hero Jefferson (no fan of the Constitution), that this clause limits Congress and the President only to those powers specifically named. They would have our leaders hamstrung in the face of any event not anticipated in 1787. They would declare illegal most of modern government, from the Tennessee Valley Authority to Social Security to the EPA.
But Marshall decided McCulloch, the great test of this question, in precisely the opposite way, establishing that the federal government has implicit powers to “ensure the general welfare”…
In the end, as one legal scholar has concluded, the Tea Party’s narrow reading of the 10th Amendment “is without support in [its] legislative history or [in] Supreme Court” precedent.
“Constitutional graffiti”
At the same time, some Congressional Republicans, including Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, have been busy proposing a veritable blizzard of Constitutional edits and fixes. These include: repeal of the 17th Amendment (ending the direct election of Senators), amending the 14th Amendment (to end birthright citizenship), a prohibition on government ownership of private corporate stock, a “Parental Rights Amendment,” various proposed term-limits amendments, an amendment prohibiting flag burning, various balanced-budget amendments, a national prohibition on gay marriage, an amendment requiring a supermajority vote for any tax increases, and an amendment restricting the President’s authority to negotiate treaties. Reaching back to the antebellum “nullification” debates, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), has even called for a “Repeal Amendment” which would provide for the nullification of federal laws by a two-thirds majority of the states, and there have been other calls for “nullification” as well.
Other Tea Party candidates weighed in offering their own Constitutional tweaks during the election campaign. For example, Joe Miller in Alaska announced that unemployment benefits were unconstitutional (despite the fact that he formerly received them), while Rand Paul said the same thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, both Glen Beck (“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” according to one recent poll by Democracy Corps- he is viewed as an “educator”) and Sharron Angle have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (which established the federal income tax).
The movements to repeal or amend the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the ghoulish return of “nullification” from its Civil War-era grave, warrant further analysis, as they illuminate the populist/libertarian assault on the Constitution, and federal authority, presently underway.
The Tea Party has become the political home of modern nativism. This finds expression in calls for the modification of the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment is a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. It plainly states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and entitled to the equal protection of the law: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Tea Party would strike from the Constitution one of the most seminal statements elucidating the concept of human freedom ever written in the history of the world. The movement to amend the 14th Amendment is an ominous harbinger of other dangers ahead.
Calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment are particularly reckless and irresponsible. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived . . . .” The power to tax, however, was not a 20th Century addition to the Constitution- Article I, Section 8 vests Congress with the “[p]ower to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .” Given this clear language, one might ask, why was the 16th Amendment needed? The answer is simple- it was necessary in order to reverse a Supreme Court decision, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., holding that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. The Pollock case is significant in that the Court broke with its own prior precedent affirming the constitutionality of the federal income tax, such as Springer v. United States (an 1889 case upholding the Constitutionality of a federal income tax), and ignored the clear language of Article I, Section 8.
While the level of the federal income tax, and its structure, is open to debate, there can be no dispute that it was an essential element in the creation of a stronger America. And that was an essential predicate to America’s world-saving role in the 20th Century- both from the spectre of Nazism, and from Communist tyranny. Those who would gut our national power, like Glen Beck and Sharron Angle, either imagine that similar dangers will never arise in the future, or worse, simply do not care. If the Tea Party succeeds in stripping Congress of its power to tax income, how will the federal government fulfill its Constitutional mandate to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .”?
The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of United States Senators. Under the original Constitution, they were appointed directly by state legislatures. Like the 16th Amendment, it was also ratified in 1913. Astonishingly, its repeal has become a favorite cause of Tea Party candidates across America. For example, speaking in July, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) informed a Tea Party crowd that the 16th (the federal income tax) and 17th Amendments began the “process of socializing America,” and that both should be repealed. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA), and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), also expressed support for repealing the 17th Amendment during the election campaign (in an ironic twist illuminating the subject of this article, Sen. Lee’s web page features the slogan “Join us in restoring Constitutional government to Washington!”).
The direct election of Senators by the people might sound innocuous, but in the view of the Tea Party, it’s ratification “dealt a blow to the Framers’ vision of the Constitution from which we have yet to recover.” In the view of the Tea Party, repealing it would enhance “states’ rights.” This puts the Tea Party in the awkward position of arguing that democracy isn’t a good thing. It also illuminates the real motivation in play- weakening the federal government, weakening the Union, and empowering State governments- which is separate and distinct from empowering citizens. To illustrate this point, consider: is it better to have United States Senators representing your state legislature, or representing you?
The sweet smell of Magnolias is discernable in much of the Tea Party’s Constitutionalism. This is particularly true in the calls for state nullification, largely centered on objections to “Obamacare.” Nullification, of course, was a doctrine conjured up and utilized by leaders in the South in the antebellum period. It has essentially laid dormant in its grave since the end of the Civil War (except for a brief dusting off during the Civil Rights era) but has now arisen, zombie-like, to haunt the political landscape again.
An entire essay could be written on the pernicious and destructive nature of nullification. For present purposes, it is enough to say that (to paraphrase Lincoln), it is in many ways the essence of anarchy. It utterly destroys federal authority, and is more appropriate for a confederation of independent states than a union (smell the Magnolias again?). If it were ever adopted, it would mean that there would be no uniform national law- different federal laws would be enforced in different states. Thus, it is a step towards Balkanization- towards eventual disunion.
It is also fundamentally antithetical to the Constitution of the Founders- indeed, it is a direct assault upon it. Article VI of the Constitution, after all, provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States and of the several states, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In the end, it is one thing to argue that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, but another thing entirely to arge that States have the authority to nullify otherwise constitutional acts of Congress. And the Tea Party seems to be taking the latter approach.
An objective observer would call all of this “re-writing,” not “restoring.” And there is no remotely comparable activity occuring on the political left. As one author has noted, “the self-proclaimed party of conservatism has become a constitutional graffiti movement.”
Our modern Anti-Federalists
In its attempt to portray itself as the defenders of the Constitution, the Tea Party appropriates the legacy of the Founding Fathers. However, the Federalist Papers, and the actions of Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Marshall in office, reflect a rather different view of federalism and the nature of the Constitutional compact. That’s not surprising. They knew that the Constitution created a strong national government- indeed, that was the point of the entire process of calling the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the first place. Such a vision is fundamentally at odds with reading the 10th Amendment as a veritable straight jacket restricting national power, with support for Cantor’s Repeal Amendment and state “nullification” laws, or with repealing the 16th Amendment.
Indeed, a common thread running through much of the Tea Party’s view of the Constitution is a desire to eviscerate the power of the federal government. In their dogmatic opposition to a vigorous central governing authority, the Tea Party actually voices views similar to those expressed by opponents of the Constitution during the ratification debates. They are the modern heirs of the Anti-Federalists, and not of the Founders. And that’s problematic, because if the Anti-Federalists had prevailed in the early years of the Republic, it is unlikely America would have grown into the prosperous, free, powerful, and united nation spanning an entire continent that it ultimately became… or perhaps, even survived.
“Facts are stubborn things”
These facts frame what the Tea Party means by “Restore the Constitution.” They do not mean the document that we have actually had during the course of our history. They do not mean the document we have lived with for the past two hundred years- the one that helped our nation achieve hitherto unprecedented levels of prosperity and freedom. And however loudly they may say they love the Constitution and the Founders, the truth is that they would amend or repeal crucial elements of it, effectively jettison more then two centuries’ of jurisprudence, and redefine federalism in a way that reverses the outcome of the Constitutional ratification debates, and even of the Civil War.
In the end, I don’t think it’s the Constitution that the Tea Party wants to restore; it’s the Articles of Confederation.
Camillus is a former Republican Party officer who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
E: It is not my claim: I gave you a neutral report. I am done. this is not worth my time. I am going to go finish watching the monsanto link. Go eat a Big Mac with fries from Monsanto engineered potatoes.
actually it will be a flame-broiled cheeseburger and strawberry milkshake from burger king, but undoubtedly i’m being poisoned just the same
e,
talk to small farmers in the midwest that are legally forced to BUY monsanto grain to feed their livestock. They are NOT allowed to use their own grain. How do I know this? My father in law owns farm land in the midwest.
@e
How about before the civil war roots. That way we wouldn’t have voting wimmin folk or freed slaves.
Did you know that the administrator of the new Farm Bill is a former Monsanto employee?
This is my shocked face.
The pension systems across the country are in shambles. Most are underfunded by millions; some by billions. The problem with 401K’s are not the idea of private investing, but in our incredibly horrible tax system and the apparent addiction to government spending. OF COURSE the 401K is actually a poor tool based on taxes. The politicians don’t want you to save money. They want you to spend it and want it taxed.
Argentina’s market was defaulting because their government was seizing capital. It was forbidden to transfer money out of the country. Profit margins are the ONLY thing that allows humans to have the things that they must have to survive. 20% malnourished? Defined by whom? 70 million people in this country are malnourished…..Really….
Are they eating the wrong foods? I could buy that, just by seeing the number of fat people. Are they starving? Not so much. If you mean that the poor get food stamps and make bad CHOICES then, that’s their fault. Not the profit margin. Its cheaper to buy good food in bulk than processed foods. AND the government could always open a government store for those defined as poor. Nothing but fruit, vegetables, etc. Since I’m not in the upper middle class, I just go to the local store. Just like the people I see in line with food stamps. Food Lion has very low prices. Those that are considered malnourished because they are fat would be the envy of those TRULY malnourished.
If there is no profit margin allowed on the necessities of life, then who provides them? You return to the idea that someone will just make something for nothing? For cost? Housing, food, medical care are all supposed to be “rights” now.
Wrong.
Its ACCESS to the acquisition of housing, food, and medical care that is a right. No one is to stop you or restrict you. Is it horrible that someone cannot afford one of these? Yes. Which is why charity is a virtue. And if a society decides that there should be a safety net for those with difficulties, I actually applaud that. But to demand that anyone be forced to provide any of the above, with no compensation, is slavery. There must be a profit margin so that said sources of necessities be developed. Econ 101.
I do not have a right to free housing, food, or medical care. I do not have a right to demand that you give me any of the above. I don’t have the right to demand that you house, feed, or heal my daughter. What we need to do is set up a society where the costs of providing such things is cheap and competition provides a price reduction.
Fascism is evil. Fascism is a SOCIALISTIC political philosophy. As is Nazism and Communism. All of these terms are used to describe collectivism. And collectivism, in the long run, denies the value of the individual.
actually, Squid, if you look at officials in the first and second administration( and probably even the Clinton adm) many of them went from being on the Monsanto board or having another position there to working for the USDA and the FDA. If you have an hour, watch the video I posted. It shows the first Bush and Quale actively promoting Monsanto GMO’s in this country despite scientific evidence that GMO’s contribute to cancer. Pretty creepy.
Squid, I used the 15-20% poverty level based on our own governments statistical data.http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-1.pdf The current income considered poverty level for a family of 4 is 22,000 yearly. How many of us could survive on even twice that with all our neccessary bills? From a nutriotion.org site: “What Causes Hunger and Malnutrition?
People who don’t get enough food often experience hunger, and hunger can lead to malnutrition over the long term. But someone can become malnourished for reasons that have nothing to do with hunger. Even people who have plenty to eat may be malnourished. if they don’t eat food that provides the right nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.. ” It is not just about poor food choices, it is about availability to poor people who don’t even HAVE access to a Food Lion. I guess for those of us who don’t have an understanding of what it means to be poor, not even having a car or money for the bus, to be able to go to the food store doesn’t compute. Some people don’t have access to a supermarket. These are undisputed facts. My father worked on the senate committee for nutrition with George McGovern and helped create Meals on Wheals, so I do have some knowledge about hunger and malnourishment. Your statement, “Those that are considered malnourished because they are fat would be the envy of those TRULY malnourished.” is confusing. I think you mean
@e does that south dakota stat include the American Indian population? I know that unemployment is extremely high on the various reservations.
The fallacy with a 401k is that if you think you have 100k you really don’t. In Virginia you only have 76k. Its all about those rascally taxes that are taken out before you ever get your grimy mitts on the money. On the other hand, many companies have a matching fund program. To not participate is to turn down free money. You have to weigh what you can do with a private IRA and an opportunity to invest any way you want vs being limited to selected investments and the free money. A 403B also carries a 1% or 2 annuity charge. Over the years this can take quite a big bite.
Pensions by far are a better deal if they are around. The problem is, pensions are often tapped by strapped governments and companies. Virginia is a perfect example. It remains to be seen if they start to pay back the VRS. If employees have to make their own contributions or part of their contributions, so be it. It’s nothing some of us haven’t had to do at some point in their career.
they would be the envy of those STARVING. Different term,altogether. Anyway, Your assessment of what’s going on about 401k’s is incorrect, but I will leave it to everyone to do more research, watch documenrtaries featuring the groups of retirees speaking for themselves and it will be fairly obvious what the story is….in terms of your Econ 101 comment, before people had to use money to buy food which most people grew themselves, they had a barter system. Doctor’s used to take chickens remember? As far as your comment,”I do not have a right to free housing, food, or medical care. I do not have a right to demand that you give me any of the above. I don’t have the right to demand that you house, feed, or heal my daughter. What we need to do is set up a society where the costs of providing such things is cheap and competition provides a price reduction” I’m sorry you feel you have no human rights to these sorts of necessities like John Locke did, but I happen to agree with him. Not that most people on this site would agree with the semntiments, but in addition to social security, GI bill, government student loans, disability, unemployment, FDR intended for our citizens to have a second bill of rights completely refuting your assertion thatt we have no right to housing food, medical care. Here is the link to FDR’s actual speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4 But I am sure most of you don’t subscribe to FDR. I have read Adam Smith’s, “Wealth of Nations” and I understand capitalism. Unfortunatley what we have had for 40 years or even longer is not capitalism. Eisenhower and FDR and many others warned against the kind of country we are living in now. in response to your fascism comment, I want to be clear: Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals.[1][2] The term corporatism is based on the Latin word “corpus” meaning “body”.[2] Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.[3] In contemporary usage, “corporatism” is often used as a term to describe politics dominated by the interests of business corporations (Corporatocracy).Corporatism is sometimes considered a synonym for fascism owing to the corporatist structures created by Mussolini’s regime as well as in the latter years of the Third Reich under Albert Speer’s direction. I don’t think anyone would actually say that what is going on in Europe ( including Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc) is some sort of fascism, would you???? In terms of collectivism, what do you think we lived in when we were hunter gatherers? A collective. Everyone worked together for the benefit of the group. There were no rich and poor. I know this offends your probable ( I assume ) Libertarian view, but for most cultures, we DO live in a collective.
@Elena
I was talking about our journey towards single payer or gov’t health care. I want the VA SUPPLEMENTED by access for the vets to the private market. Many can’t travel to the centralized VA hospitals. I’m opposed to turning our private market into a civilian VA.
“How do you feel about car insurance, home owners insurance? With those you have a choice to own a car or a house, you DO NOT Have a choice to “own” a body.”
Actually, I don’t feel those should be mandated either. Its my choice to buy those. I fyou hit me and don’t have it, I take everything that you and your family owns, if I have to, to pay for damages. Sell the house. Garnish wages. I’d do it for my benefit, even if it were legal to not own it. In fact, home owner’s insurance is only mandated BY THE BANK that’s lending you money. Once paid off, insurance is not mandated.
You actually make my point. I don’t have a choice to own my body, so a mandate by the government to buy a product is a requirement not found in the Constitution to be a citizen of the US. Want to change it? There’s a process for that.
It is my choice to buy insurance. If I can’t make my bills, I am subject to liens, garnishment, and bankruptcy. Paying a medical bill is no different than paying for food or shelter. Should everyone buy food insurance so as to pay for it if unable to make money or be guaranteed shelter? Could ways to make medical treatment be found to make it cheaper? Yes. And I support those.
But the current ideas are nothing more than a way for the government to pass off THEIR costs on Medicaid and Medicare. Many union pension funds, including medical benefits, are horribly underfunded. Those pushing HCR ADMITTED that this is just the first step in an agenda to government run health care.
Should there be a safety net? Absolutely! We just have to decide how that is to be done without taking away civil rights. I’m not a purist libertarian. I believe that their should be some sort of safety net. Medicare is one such, but why is that supposed to be the PRIMARY medical source for seniors?
There are no easy, simple answers. This will not be solved to everyone’s satisfaction. As long as we force hospitals to accept and treat those with the inability to pay, we will have this option.
Perhaps its time to bring back indentured servitude….. 😉
I don’t trust a government, especially one already shown to do so, not to exceed boundries because “its a good idea or its for ________________.” Governments seek control. The more government control, the less freedom. Governments can make good referees as long as they have NO stake in the game. There are too many in government with something to gain.
Cargo, you have made my point, thank you. if one could not afford to go into the grocery store and buy food, they would not sell it to you. THAT Is why we have food stamps, which all our taxes go to pay for. But what about those families that don’t qualify for food stamps, and have to go to food banks or simply go without or eat shit fast food. How about we just change our healthcare system as you are suggesting and one cannot have medical care unless they can pay for it right then and there! Let’s see how many sick and dying children would be the result of such a policy.
People declare bankruptcy DUE TO MEDICAL BILLS, this just in, ALL THE TIME! Who gets stuck paying those bills, we do, those with Insurance. Those are the facts, we are paying anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you require more people to get in the pool of insurance, then cost would decrease for all of us.
Do you know someone who puts off getting medical care because they don’t have insurance and then end up even sicker than if they had simply been able to treat the early symptoms? Is prevention not the best tool to help control out of control rising medical costs?
Oh by the way, i n response to E’s comment, “20% of our country is malnourished??? what is it now, a record 1 in 7 americans is on food stamps,” hrere is the actual statistic which doesnt include people right above the poverty level. You seemed to like the reuters link so I went there. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465E220100507 Do your homework the next time you want to have a serious debate with me. I’m a philosophy major. I deal with questioning premises and getting to the answers. I’m not right all the time, but I try to put my money where my mouth is. It’s a waste of my time otherwise
When I found the reuters report there was this comment made on their blog. I think it deserves to be put here to respond to the previous comments. “As a Quality Control Auditor of the SNAP program I can say with some knowledge of the the program that
1) SNAP benefits are issued on a debit-like card that can be used for food purchases only – no cash to the recipients, ever! In addition, food purchases cannot be for foods that are already prepared. For example, a roasted chicken from the deli does not qualify.
2) More than half of the families that receive SNAP benefits are employed and still qualify for the SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE program. The other half are composed of Social Security recipients of some sort, the elderly and the disabled.
3) There are just as many people out there that qualify and don’t receive the benefits because they don’t want to be belittled by the likes of you all. They would rather starve.
3) WELFARE does not exist anymore and those who think it does are ignorant. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families is very restrictive. A family can only receive CASH assistance for a maximum of 60 months in a LIFETIME. That family must participate in 30 hours per week of either job training, job procurement activies or if a job is not found with 3 months, that person has to volunteer as a designated facility, such a a Goodwill Industries facility, for 30 hours per week. If they do not participate they are sanctioned and loose the benefit. For a household of 2 (a single mom and one child) that benefit is $400 for the month. Most people have figured out that Mickey D’s pays better than that.
4) none of this has anything to do with Obama or Bush or Reagan for that matter. This is an economic cycle precipitated by greedy bankers and Wall Street mongerers that will be cleaned up for a few years, at least until the next crash. “
Oh and by the way, I personally had to go bankrupt 5 years ago because my ex changed our health insurance from PPO to an HMO against court order, thus dropping me from the plan leaving me without health coverage. Between my childrens resulting copays, coinsurances and my brief 7 hour $13,000 visit to the ER, I was forced to declare bankruptcy. Thanks, Elena, I forgot I was one of those unfortunate people…..
Goodnight everyone. I am on West Coast time so Its still reasonably early. In 5 years I have never spent this much time online, and honestly never responded to blogs before, so thankyou for the enlightenment. For the most part, with the exception of Camillus, who I have a lot of respect and admiration, it is just really sad to see how incredibly polarized our country is. As I said before , we are in the middle of a major paradigm shift. What Camillus said about the Tea Party is correct. Frankly, I am not completely disturbed because , as with any paradigm shift, there will be a crash to the bottom before we start to ascend. I think the only redeeming experience for this country would be to have a serious depression again. My reason being that all the people on the right who think they are so safe from personal risk or danger would have to get in the boat with the centrists, democrats and progressives which make up the majority of our country. They would then see the need for corporate regulation, food and housing programs. We would all be one country again. Squid, I hope you got to see the Monsanto expose. Thanks for the chuckle about your shocked face. I appreciated it.
heidi, i went to your reuters link, it said “The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February”, so my off the cuff guess of 1 in 7 americans on food stamps was pretty accurate. i’m impressed that you’re a philosophy major, it’s a tragedy that you’re espousing a philosophy that has been tried and failed. your ideal of establishing heaven on earth will never work without divine intervention because you fail to understand the primary motivations of human behavior, namely, without giving a person an incentive to work, i.e. profit, that person will have no reason to get out of bed in the morning and produce a good or service. you seem to think that healthcare, food etc. will fall out of the heavens like manna, if only we can get rid of those evil capitalists who corner and manipulate the market. and so yes, i guess our country is polarized between those who agree with you, and those who know better. the majority of this country is still center-right, and believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. yes, undoubtedly a crash is coming, the Cloward–Piven strategy where the whole system is overloaded to a point that it’s unsustainable, and on the ashes a new equalitarian society of socialism is constructed. good luck
“second bill of rights completely refuting your assertion that we have no right to housing food, medical care.”
That speech does not “refute” my statements, it just disagrees with them. No rights can put an obligation on another. Look at Europe today, where citizens are rioting because their rights to a free lunch are happening. The gov’ts there and here get THEIR income from the citizenry. So how much should we leave the citizenry and have the government take in order to provide for these rights. I mean, since its a right, why should I have to pay for any of it?
“Social security, GI bill, government student loans, disability, unemployment,”
Social Security is a ponzi scheme originally designed to NOT pay out. Life expectancy tables showed that most died before SS kicked in. Its a tax.
GI Bill was a benefit for service.
Government student loans – are you talking about the guarantee to banks? Now, the banks are out of it. Do you actually trust the crooks in Congress to not add “conditions” of what people should study to get those loans in the future? Congress has never been able to resist “tinkering” to “improve” things. And your government has made it impossible to refinance, modify, or get out of loans through bankruptcy. Why no out cry over the impoverishment of people through the hard nosed bankers about that? Isn’t education a right?
Disability – Are you talking about the disability payments through Soc. Sec., the VA, or something else? See my statements about “safety nets” being a good thing.
Unemployment – Safety net. However, it should be decided by the states. The federal gov’t should not force states to have to borrow money to cover it.
I find it interesting that the same people decrying that we have to pay for other people’s health care so we must mandate that they all buy insurance are the same ones that want housing and food to also be rights. I would rather have a tax that provides a safety net for those that must get help. Oh, wait, we do. Its Medicaid. How about those people that can’t afford that mandated insurance or refuse to get it? We will have to pay for their insurance because they are poor and we will have to pay for prison time if those refusing will not cooperate.
If you don’t want to pay for others health care then why do you insist that we must pay for them in the first place? Citizens of all stripes decided that no one can be turned away from actual health care. Well, now we pay for that decision. And more government involvement will involve more mandates on how one lives. Can’t have that salt! Cut out that booze! NO SMOKING! Transfats? OMG! Look how the government is trying to “help” us now. Think that it will get better in the future?
I also have no faith in that politicians will not use this power to regulate, well..everything, to influence people in other ways? Mr. Smith, your operation is on hold…..btw, have you joined that union yet? Mrs. Smith, abortions are more expensive than birth. Go have it at home and take care of it. We don’t have the budget right now. Come back in 6 months….oh is that too late? Sorry. Mr and Mrs Jones? That virus fighter is too expensive for the budget, have you tried this generic one that’s from Canada? Oh, no, you can’t sue to get better treatment. We’re all government employees…..
See, the dsytopia works both ways with both conservative and liberal of government…
Pardon the choppy ewriting please. Forgot to proofread……
You are the one who is confused E. You confuse heaven on earth ( Kantian philosophy) with Utilitarianism, (the the greatest happiness for most people theory) which WAS FDR’s platform. that is also why people in many European countries ( friends that we know in many of those same countries) who love living there, even with higher taxes because the services are better. Go argue with someone else. I am tired of discussing anything with someone who drinks too much of the kool-aid. Goodbye
Squid,
the student loans- the banks were in it starting with Bush. I had an ELSI loan through the govt and it worked out GREAT! for 25 years the banks were allowed to decimate middle class families by charging them the going rate, meaning: LESS poor and middle class kids could go to college and the rich didn’t need to take out lians and sent their kids to private institutions.
As far as the rest of your argument: We already pay for the uninsured: read Elena’s response. Additionally, no I don’t trust the Congress, and I trust the senators less. I personally feel that the entire system is built on corruption and needs to be taken down in terms of money in politics. One of the states before ratification wanted to put into law the following<" If any person in govt should take money or do favors in any way during their course of office, they should be brought to the congressional dungeon for a term to be decided on at their trial. " Frankly most of those bastards should be below ground right now. You mistake me for a different kind of liberal, sorry. But I am a Utilitarian and believe many things similar to my progressive friends. We will have to agree to disagree. I personally think Bush, Rove , Cheney and Rumsfield should be allowed to rot in jail, Obama is a pathetic excuse for someone I thought was going to clean house and is just a Bush lite in terms of his war and bank policies. One last thing: My daughter is severely ill and disabled with RA and bipolar disorder since childhood. she receives disability. It isnt a lot, but it will keep her from being homeless when she's older. Have you have ever received medicaid, unenployments, vets benefits, or any other govt funded program? Have you ever known anyone who didn't have health insurance, worked a 10 an hour job and couldn't make it? How about somene who has been homeless or hungry?
I also think the bailouts to the banks and wall street was nothing more than nepotism with Geitner and Summers at the helm. I believe in the dream act, but don’t believe in amnesty for more illegal immigrants. Fine the crap out of employers and they’ll stop coming.
Squid, we will have to disagree, I am a federalist, not a states right only advocate. Agian we’ll have to agree to disagree
Yes. I have known them. And I’m unemployed and not on unemployment. My daughter is a Type 1 Diabetic so “pre-existiing” will follow her. Vet benefits, I consider, are part of the employment contract and are not the same as the other payments.
I don’t have a problem with many of the safety net programs. I am not a pure libertarian. I do believe that the federal government has intruded too much, however. They never know when enough is enough, so we end up having to use more drastic restrictions against government involvement. I understand where you are coming from. Progressives believe that because the government can take money from the citizenry for “good” things to help them, then it should do so. Of course, the progressives always know the best way to “help.” They are the experts and government is here to help. I think Hoover and FDR had that idea…….oh, yeah…..look where that got us.
And society has decided that the taking of taxes to do such things, TO A DEGREE, are acceptable. But, give the government an inch……
You object to the corporatism, yet want MORE government involvement. Its the size of the government, its reach, and its corrupt support of big corporations that cause such things. Do you think that the government would do any better with health care.
I use the VA. Its underfunded, over funded, broken, and outstanding. It all depends upon your need or your perception. And, of course, where you live and what hospital you use. Walter Reed is great. Their out patient quarters needed fixing. Congress (those same people that “visited” all the time) made a big deal out of it for media purposes because Bush was in office. It was fixed promptly by those in command. It was a dog and pony show. McGuires in Richmond does good work. But, I’m glad that Patient First, Henrico Doctors, and St. Mary’s is still in business. Their emergency waits are MUCH shorter and are much closer. When health care becomes a right, where will these hospitals and treatment centers go? If there is no profit, then there will be much fewer centers to use.
As long as the politicians have a stake in the game, they cannot be responsible referees. The power to tax them drives the corporations into bed with politicians. I’ve always felt that all pols should be forced to put their assets into a account that matches inflation. No profits. They cannot invest in anything other than government bonds. If they want to serve their country, then they can serve it, not profit from it.
@Heidi
I’m not a states rights only purist. I just believe that if you have the states provide “benefits” those that do not wish the safety net and wish lower taxes have that opportunity.
There is a reason that Texas is booming and California is not.
@Heidi
I agree about the bailouts, etc.
The Dream Act was junk. If Congress wants to “do it for the children” then limit it to the children and write a simple bill.
First, we have to clarify the 14th. Do the children of illegal immigrants become citizens upon birth? There is a question about that. The author of that amendment did not think so. Court cases ruled that children of legal immigrants, not in the diplomatic service, are citizens.
It wasn’t just Bush’s admin that hurt people with student loans. That’s been happening way before him.
FDR’s intentions were to help the most people. However, it did not work out that way. He may have been a “utilitarianist” by intention, but was a full blown centralized government progressive in act. And those acts are what prolonged the Depression. It is ALWAYS the intent to “help the most people” that causes governments to over-reach. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, any “ism” always professes to want to help the most people. and they enacted programs to do so.
You may feel that you are being Utilitarian by advocating for positive rights. So how do those positive rights work without taking away the rights of others? How is your philosophy different from “the ends justifies the means.”? Just because SOME of the European countries are a success does not mean that it would work here. You are ignoring the relative cultures of the people involved. Want to start a business in Germany? there are a huge number of hoop to jump through and you still must get approved by the city council so that you don’t provide an undue amount of competition.
Cows are content and happy. They are provided everything.
I’ve known Europeans that LOVE it here because we are not complacent. I know Americans that want to immigrate to Europe because they want more stuff given to them. Lets ask the French how happy they are, especially in Paris. The country is going broke, there are riots because the retirement age is being moved up to 60. Riots happen frequently, The uncontrolled immigration from North Africa and the refusal of the immigrants to assimilate and the French refusal to facilitate assimilation makes for a very unhappy society.
We are different. And most of us do not want to become more like Europe.
I wonder how much of that social spending would have been possible if our military had not kept them safe since WWII? If we had a sugar daddy we would have been able to spend our money on “butter” too.
@Cargo, re:
I don’t disagree with you. However, state employees feel that way about their pension because it was a benefit–one of the darn few benefits. I don’t see the difference other than one is state and one is federal. The state, however, has less chance of remaining solid. As you say, the state can’t print money.
All part of the contract….
I don’t have a problem with pensions. If that is what is agreed upon, then fine. My mother got a pension. I’ll get a pension when I hit 60. Pensions are fine. But they are not necessarily better or worse than any other investment/retirement tool, since states are sitting on about 3 TRILLION in unfunded pensions…..
Personally, I like control of my money, whether I gain or lose. With a pension that is unfunded, what recourse do you have? Just like I don’t expect to see a DIME of my social security money.
i’m glad people in europe enjoy living there, they love living there so much they forgot to have children
and i’m familiar with fdr’s 2nd bill of rights; statists resent the first one because it stipulates what government cannot do to you, cannot restrict freedom of speech etc., whereas statists are always trying to do this or that to the people (they will say “for” the people), and so the need for a second bill of rights, so called. the soviet union had such a “bill of rights”, in which everyone “had the right to a job, housing, etc”. we all know how that turned out, so why think things will work out any better the next time it’s tried? maybe i don’t know much about kantian vs utilitarianism, i will defer to the philosophy major for that, but this much i know is true: the free market capitalist system has provided the most happiness and success to the most people, and it is nonsensical to dump it in favor of a system that has brought nothing but failure and misery
and i’m typing from elena’s computer, and she agrees with everything i say (now i better run, she’s coming after me with a steak knife)
how ungrateful, I make a homemade organic apple pie for the guy find out e is contaminating my computer!!!!!!!!!!!!
and her tv too, tuned to fox news fair and balanced
@ Heidi: “I am a federalist, not a states right only advocate.”
That pretty much sums me up as well. I’m for limited, but vigorous, gov’t- not no goverment at all.
another example of how progressives package their bill of goods to appear more palatable to the american people. when practically every element of our society from the banks to the health insurance industry to agriculture is indicted and trashed, and only big daddy in washington is lauded as savior to all our ills and needs, it’s very obvious that the heidis and camillus’s are not being very forthcoming about their real agenda
zounds you found me out… I must be a socialist too. Knocking over straw men is easy E (lol no pun intended), I never said “big daddy in Wahsington” is the “savior.” My “real agenda” is very simple- I got involved in politics/policy for one reason- so my kids can grow to adulthood and live their lives in a world of promise and opportunity- one where they have the chance to reach their full potential as human beings- in an economic and moral sense. I want a better tomorrow for all of us. And I think we still have time to hold off the dystopian futures threatening on the horizon, and to secure something better…. failing that, my aim is simply to keep the wolf from the door for as long as possible.
ah, a better tomorrow for all…i recall watching old footage of fidel castro haranguing the bandits and parasites and sons of parasites who had sucked the blood of cuba dry (it sounds better in spanish admittedly), always the siren call of utopia, heaven on earth, and then the idealistic trotskyites are always vanquished by the power mad stalinists…true equality of outcome is an impossible ideal, we are only guaranteed an equal right to pursue the full extent of our capabilities and desires LIVE FREE OR DIE
I’m hardly talking about utopia here, or about equality of outcomes (you are reading things that are not written in the actual comments again)- merely the possibility of positive change and growth or, at a minimum, of holding things together as the gyre spins for as long as possible. You live in this wonderful country because others cared enough about tomorrow to make hard choices and sacrifices- and the fruits of their labors are not some theoretical project; you are surrounded by them every day.
i live in this wonderful country because my ancestors fled tyranny and poverty in the old world, the same conditions that will be repeated here if your utopian vision of a collective and a government reaching into every aspect of our lives, from healthcare to what kind of freakin lightbulb i’m allowed to have, to whether i’m allowed to put salt on or transfat into my meal, is ever allowed to reach fruition. i live in this wonderful country that was made wonderful because millions of individuals are permitted to wake up every morning and fulfill their hearts’ desires without the encumbrance of big brother taxing them to death and wasting their taxdollars in a futile scheme of wealth redistribution. i live in a wonderful country that was built on a bedrock of solid, conservative values, where people took responsibility for their own lives and didn’t always look for a handout. i live in a wonderful country that once was proud of itself and its heritage, and didn’t look to europe or anywhere else for inspiration and a role model. and one day in the [perhaps not too] distant future, after you have succeeded in tearing it all down, your descendants after another grueling day of backbreaking work in the fields will be huddled around the dying embers of their campfires, and whisper furtively and longingly about a day long ago, about a mythic land called america, where men were once free
“if we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to, this is the last stand on earth.” you want to help your progeny, listen to the man and learn a thing or two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
this speech was given exactly 50 years ago, in 1961, yet it is so timeless and prescient it could almost have been given yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
Camillus, I decided to avoid this site too much, I really only enjoyed reading your synopses of ideas because I can tell you are very educated and knowledgeable. I got weary of all the ad hominem attacks and nutty comments. I majored in phiilosophy in order to go to Law school but have had too many health problems the past 2 years and have decided to take a break for now. I can tell you know the law. I respect a fellow Platonic thinker. Thanks for your insight, even if we disagree about how we “get there”.
@Heidi
There really are not that many ad hominem attacks on this blog. Elena and I both find that kind of discourse is unproductive. Our contributors are tenatious and will defend their ideas vigorously. I think that is healthy.
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Ronald Reagan, see above
Camillus, I unfortunately found this while searching for ” The Great Depression” The site and its comment thread are self explanatory. Unfortunately, what scares me is that many on the far right, without the actual attacks on specific races ( well maybe we can include illegal immigrants) sound very similar in terms of the vitriol they spew. I would like your assessment and comment in terms of how far you think these 2 groups overlap? http://www.subvertednation.net/the-great-depression/#comments
I guess it depends on your perception of ad hominem attacks. Technically speaking, I suppose it is more attacks on groups of people rather than “at the man” so you are correct, but It feels like it skirts the edge. I suppose you are correct though. I defer to your judgement Moon howler
@Heidi, I can steer you to a few other places for the comparison.
@Heidi
See, that’s where biases show up. You are equating one bigot’s opinion with the far right. One – Please define “far right” as right and left are relative. Two – Most “right wingers” that I know would cheerfully beat the crap out of such a person if they said such things to their face. Three – Are you actually accusing the “right” of being anti=semitic or just being bigots in general? There are bigots throughout the political spectrum.
I understand that many have strong opinions about illegal immigration and that some are offensive. But, are you not aware of the violent and offensive …… opinions……for politeness’ sake…. that some of the left profess? Why doesn’t that scare you? Why is it only the right?
@ Heidi- checked out the link.
The lions, the tigers, the bears… oh my. I wrote an earlier piece on this site about the fear and anger animating the Tea Party, and holding out an alternative, what I would call, “an invitation to something better.” It was reading stuff like this on the blogs, and hearing the same bile regurgitated at meetings and rally’s, and on the radio, over the past two years that inspired me to write the original article.
“No doubt some smart asses with college degrees…”- the angry anti-intellectualism that is fast become a badge of honor with the populist Right. Our correspondent is qualified to opine on matters economic and political because he slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but he deeply resents having that pointed out to him.
“Let me quote the jew owned wikipedia disinformation front…” Wow, methinks a well-worn copy of the Turner Diaries adorns this gent’s bookshelf. Not to be a college educated smart ass, but Wiki isn’t a source one should quote.
And so it goes…
How far do they overlap….. hmm… years ago, the GOP embarked on a “Southern Strategy” and it has worked out pretty successfully- winning Southern states to win national elections. The problem though is that it has brought the Dixiecrats into the GOP, and that open the door, to well…
I think there is a great deal of merit to the idea that having an African American with a foreign sounding last name in the White House has completely unhinged some people. In a way, he is the personification, the harbinger of, the more diverse nation we are quickly becoming- a nation in which Caucasians will make up only about 1/2 the population. And that is a future that produces a great deal of anxiety in some folks. I can’t help but think of this when I hear shouts of “I want my country back”- a phrase we never heard during the Clinton years.
One other commenter on here asked why I am taking shots at fellow conservatives- the answer is simple, because what they are doing and saying is dangerous- indeed, profoundly so. Demographic change is inexorable. As America becomes more diverse, will we see the GOP devolve into an ethnic/regional party? If the Tea Party represents the birth of “white minority politics”- and I think it may- then we have much to be concerned about. It will not be pretty.
Let me close with this, Arizona State Sen. Russell Piece, the man who proposed SB1070, brings together the two threads you are addressing- the populist nativism that has worked its way into the mainstream on the right and the more extreme, anti-semitic, racist fringe elements reflected on the site you provided. Do the research on him, and you will find the point at which these vectors converge.
@ Heidi- the comments over here are actually pretty tame compaired to Politico and other sites.
@ E– is some magic talking points 8-ball giving you all this, because you are not actually responding to what was written in the blog. Do you really equate defending the jurisprudence of John Marshall, and the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amenedments, with some sort of utopian socialist vision?
@E- “and didn’t look to europe or anywhere else for inspiration and a role model.”
Actually that is entirely false- the Founders looked to the history of the Roman Republic and were “inspired” by “country-party” Whig writings produced in opposition to the Walpole ministry in England.