07/01: A BiPartisan Party?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
An interesting meeting is going on today up the road from me at the University of Oklahoma. Story here.
Excerpts:
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren says a conference in Norman today is intended to send a message that Democrats and Republicans should lead a bipartisan government of national unity.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is among more than one dozen political centrists expected to attend the conference one day before the New Hampshire primary.
Other attendees include former Republican senator John Danforth of Missouri and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
One part of me is drawn to this idea: a government by statesmen rather than by party. As I've mentioned, in my political thought, I am a great admirer of Revolutionary-Era Republicanism (the system of ideas underlying a republic): the political thought of the Revolutionary generation. A major idea in that ideology is that citizens should be committed to the Common Good, what's best for all. Also, that politics takes place within a universe governed by laws given by the Creator, in other words, political decisions should conform not only to the natural laws governing politics, but also to the Moral Law. George Washington deplored the idea of political parties. In the 1790s neither the Federalists nor Republicans could or would call themselves political parties. "Parties" were thought to equal "Faction" which meant a group out for themselves, not the Common Good.
But, on the other hand, there is another idea in Revolutionary-Era Republicanism at tension with this: human beings are not to be trusted with power. One major root of republicanism is the Puritan/ Presbyterian/ Separatist Protestant tradition in Britain. Central to the doctrine of these groups is the teaching that mankind has "fallen" into a state of sin. Therefore, in politics vigilance is necessary lest someone, or some group, abuse power because of their fallenness. Madison exemplifies this way of thinking in the establishment of checks-and-balances within our Federal Government, and between the Federal Government and the States. Later, Martin Van Buren (a member of the Kinderhook Dutch Reformed Church, a group very committed to the doctrine of Total Depravity), would justify political parties, in part, because of their ability to maintain vigilance. In a sense, political parties are an extension of Madison's system of dividing power and then limiting the expression of power by having competing groups.
Realistically, we need parties in conflict. Mexico, among other nations, demonstrates that corruption follows the extended rule by one party making itself a monopoly. Even a "bipartisan" group will act like a party.
For some more philosophy, see below.
Excerpts:
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren says a conference in Norman today is intended to send a message that Democrats and Republicans should lead a bipartisan government of national unity.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is among more than one dozen political centrists expected to attend the conference one day before the New Hampshire primary.
Other attendees include former Republican senator John Danforth of Missouri and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
One part of me is drawn to this idea: a government by statesmen rather than by party. As I've mentioned, in my political thought, I am a great admirer of Revolutionary-Era Republicanism (the system of ideas underlying a republic): the political thought of the Revolutionary generation. A major idea in that ideology is that citizens should be committed to the Common Good, what's best for all. Also, that politics takes place within a universe governed by laws given by the Creator, in other words, political decisions should conform not only to the natural laws governing politics, but also to the Moral Law. George Washington deplored the idea of political parties. In the 1790s neither the Federalists nor Republicans could or would call themselves political parties. "Parties" were thought to equal "Faction" which meant a group out for themselves, not the Common Good.
But, on the other hand, there is another idea in Revolutionary-Era Republicanism at tension with this: human beings are not to be trusted with power. One major root of republicanism is the Puritan/ Presbyterian/ Separatist Protestant tradition in Britain. Central to the doctrine of these groups is the teaching that mankind has "fallen" into a state of sin. Therefore, in politics vigilance is necessary lest someone, or some group, abuse power because of their fallenness. Madison exemplifies this way of thinking in the establishment of checks-and-balances within our Federal Government, and between the Federal Government and the States. Later, Martin Van Buren (a member of the Kinderhook Dutch Reformed Church, a group very committed to the doctrine of Total Depravity), would justify political parties, in part, because of their ability to maintain vigilance. In a sense, political parties are an extension of Madison's system of dividing power and then limiting the expression of power by having competing groups.
Realistically, we need parties in conflict. Mexico, among other nations, demonstrates that corruption follows the extended rule by one party making itself a monopoly. Even a "bipartisan" group will act like a party.
For some more philosophy, see below.
29/11: Henry Hyde, RIP
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Former Representative from Illinois, Henry Hyde is dead at 83. Story from Fox News.
Former Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, a strong foreign policy and anti-abortion voice in Congress and a leader of House impeachment proceedings in 1998, died Thursday. He was 83.
Jayson Javitz at Wizbang has this tribute.
Javitz's concluding paragraph: At a time when conservatives tend to look at former sportscasters and spoiled academics for guidance, Hyde was a man of action who accomplished more than cheap talk. Hyde retired on his own terms and personally chose his successor.
Here is the tribute given by Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Illinois 3rd District, on Hyde's retirement. Here is the conclusion: Henry is willing to work together to reach consensus and to reach important goals for our country. No matter what you thought about where he stood on issues, you listened to Henry Hyde because you knew when he spoke he would be eloquent, he would have good arguments, and you should listen to him. Now, I am very happy that I had this opportunity to serve with Henry. He has served our Nation so well. He has served the State of Illinois so well, and I know that his legacy will certainly reflect his commitment to Illinois, to his district, and to our Nation. His insights, his passion, and his presence will deeply be missed. He truly was also a man of faith, which he brought here and always used that; it was always important to what he did in the House. We wish Henry all the best in his retirement. And we are all truly grateful for his service.
Hyde will be remembered, with affection and with dislike, for the Hyde Amendment, which limited the provision of abortions by Medicaid. Here is a reasonably evenhanded description of the amendment from the pro-abortion perspective:
The Hyde Amendment
After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid.
Over the past two decades, Congress has debated the limited circumstances under which federal funding for abortion should be allowed. For a brief period of time, coverage included cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, and physical health damage to the woman. However, beginning in 1979, the physical health exception was excluded, and in 1981 rape and incest exceptions were also excluded.
In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.
His political career, including personal information, may be found here at Congresspedia.
After his retirement, President Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom. News release including text of President Bush's remarks.
Former Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, a strong foreign policy and anti-abortion voice in Congress and a leader of House impeachment proceedings in 1998, died Thursday. He was 83.
Jayson Javitz at Wizbang has this tribute.
Javitz's concluding paragraph: At a time when conservatives tend to look at former sportscasters and spoiled academics for guidance, Hyde was a man of action who accomplished more than cheap talk. Hyde retired on his own terms and personally chose his successor.
Here is the tribute given by Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Illinois 3rd District, on Hyde's retirement. Here is the conclusion: Henry is willing to work together to reach consensus and to reach important goals for our country. No matter what you thought about where he stood on issues, you listened to Henry Hyde because you knew when he spoke he would be eloquent, he would have good arguments, and you should listen to him. Now, I am very happy that I had this opportunity to serve with Henry. He has served our Nation so well. He has served the State of Illinois so well, and I know that his legacy will certainly reflect his commitment to Illinois, to his district, and to our Nation. His insights, his passion, and his presence will deeply be missed. He truly was also a man of faith, which he brought here and always used that; it was always important to what he did in the House. We wish Henry all the best in his retirement. And we are all truly grateful for his service.
Hyde will be remembered, with affection and with dislike, for the Hyde Amendment, which limited the provision of abortions by Medicaid. Here is a reasonably evenhanded description of the amendment from the pro-abortion perspective:
The Hyde Amendment
After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid.
Over the past two decades, Congress has debated the limited circumstances under which federal funding for abortion should be allowed. For a brief period of time, coverage included cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, and physical health damage to the woman. However, beginning in 1979, the physical health exception was excluded, and in 1981 rape and incest exceptions were also excluded.
In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.
His political career, including personal information, may be found here at Congresspedia.
After his retirement, President Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom. News release including text of President Bush's remarks.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
For years, Reagan detractors have tenaciously clung to a memory that portrays the "Great Communicator" not so subtly appealing to white racists by kicking off his 1980 presidential campaign at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the infamous scene of the horrific murders of three civil rights workers in 1964.
Last week in the New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert asserted that Reagan "was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
Herbert's analysis (in full here):
"Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.
"He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about 'states’ rights' to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you."
In an op-ed piece in the Times today (Sunday), long-time Ronald Reagan chronicler, Lou Cannon, rejects "the notion that...Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter in 1980 by a coded appeal to white-supremacist voters."
Cannon writes:
"The mythology of Neshoba is wrong in two distinct ways. First, Ronald Reagan was not a racist. Second, his Neshoba speech was not an effective symbolic appeal to white voters. Instead, it was a political misstep that cost him support."
The article (in full here) is worth the read. No one knew the real Ronald Reagan better than Cannon as a reporter and subsequent biographer. In addition to his testimony to Reagan's character, Cannon makes an important point that the appeal to race (such as it was) in Neshoba County played no positive role in the election. He also reminds us that the negative publicity surrounding the incident emanated from the Carter campaign, which quickly seized upon the embarrassing appearance immediately and spun the incident into a long-lasting negative Reagan myth. Cannon also reminds us that Reagan was not born a candidate with perfect political pitch; rather, the "Great Communicator" grew into the job.
An aside: Gordon Wood tells a story about George Washington in which his contemporaries imagined that he was born into this world fully clothed and, upon arrival, quickly executed a flawless gentlemanly bow before his audience. It is sometimes hard to keep in mind the human limitations of our heroes
Having said all that, Cannon does not completely exonerate Reagan in my mind. The question remains: ultimately unsuccessful or not, what message was the candidate attempting to convey with this clumsy stop so near to the tragic events of the summer of 1964?
Important Item: The well-argued defense of Reagan at Neshoba by David Brooks earlier in the month here.
Last week in the New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert asserted that Reagan "was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
Herbert's analysis (in full here):
"Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.
"He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about 'states’ rights' to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you."
In an op-ed piece in the Times today (Sunday), long-time Ronald Reagan chronicler, Lou Cannon, rejects "the notion that...Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter in 1980 by a coded appeal to white-supremacist voters."
Cannon writes:
"The mythology of Neshoba is wrong in two distinct ways. First, Ronald Reagan was not a racist. Second, his Neshoba speech was not an effective symbolic appeal to white voters. Instead, it was a political misstep that cost him support."
The article (in full here) is worth the read. No one knew the real Ronald Reagan better than Cannon as a reporter and subsequent biographer. In addition to his testimony to Reagan's character, Cannon makes an important point that the appeal to race (such as it was) in Neshoba County played no positive role in the election. He also reminds us that the negative publicity surrounding the incident emanated from the Carter campaign, which quickly seized upon the embarrassing appearance immediately and spun the incident into a long-lasting negative Reagan myth. Cannon also reminds us that Reagan was not born a candidate with perfect political pitch; rather, the "Great Communicator" grew into the job.
An aside: Gordon Wood tells a story about George Washington in which his contemporaries imagined that he was born into this world fully clothed and, upon arrival, quickly executed a flawless gentlemanly bow before his audience. It is sometimes hard to keep in mind the human limitations of our heroes
Having said all that, Cannon does not completely exonerate Reagan in my mind. The question remains: ultimately unsuccessful or not, what message was the candidate attempting to convey with this clumsy stop so near to the tragic events of the summer of 1964?
Important Item: The well-argued defense of Reagan at Neshoba by David Brooks earlier in the month here.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Belgium still is without a new coalition government after June 10 elections. The problem? The nation is composed of two distinct groups speaking two languages and having two cultures: French speaking and Dutch speaking. Story from Breitbart.
Do we here in the U.S. really want to create a nation without a common language and a shared culture? What sort of glue would hold us together then?
Do we here in the U.S. really want to create a nation without a common language and a shared culture? What sort of glue would hold us together then?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
An AP story from the New York Daily News.
MOSCOW - Alexander Feklisov, the Soviet-era spy chief who oversaw the espionage work of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and helped mediate the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, has died, a Russian official said Friday. He was 93.
Feklisov died Oct. 26, said Sergei Ivanov, a spokesman for the Foreign Intelligence Service, one of the successor agencies to the KGB. He gave no cause of death.
. . .
Years later, he published an autobiography, "The Man Behind the Rosenbergs," in which he described his work guiding the intelligence-gathering work of the couple. The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 after being convicted of supplying the Soviet Union with top-secret information on U.S. efforts to develop the atomic bomb.
Feklisov said Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet sympathizer who handed over secrets on military electronics, but not the atomic bomb. He said Ethel Rosenberg played no part in spying - claims that were consistent with declassified U.S. intercepts of Soviet spy communications.
He was later dispatched to London, where he made contact with Klaus Fuchs, the German-born scientist who worked at the U.S. atom bomb project as well as at Britain's Harwell nuclear research laboratory. Information passed to the Soviets by Fuchs and another spy, David Greenglass, gave the Soviets crucial new information on a new way to ignite an atomic bomb.
In 1950, Fuchs was sentenced to 14 years for disclosing nuclear secrets. Full Story.
Contrary to the Liberal Orthodoxy of the 70s-90s, there were rational grounds for the Red Scare of the 1950s. The Soviets were active in spying and other activities in the U.S. McCarthy was still a power-hungry demogogue, but there was a bear on the prowl.
MOSCOW - Alexander Feklisov, the Soviet-era spy chief who oversaw the espionage work of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and helped mediate the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, has died, a Russian official said Friday. He was 93.
Feklisov died Oct. 26, said Sergei Ivanov, a spokesman for the Foreign Intelligence Service, one of the successor agencies to the KGB. He gave no cause of death.
. . .
Years later, he published an autobiography, "The Man Behind the Rosenbergs," in which he described his work guiding the intelligence-gathering work of the couple. The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 after being convicted of supplying the Soviet Union with top-secret information on U.S. efforts to develop the atomic bomb.
Feklisov said Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet sympathizer who handed over secrets on military electronics, but not the atomic bomb. He said Ethel Rosenberg played no part in spying - claims that were consistent with declassified U.S. intercepts of Soviet spy communications.
He was later dispatched to London, where he made contact with Klaus Fuchs, the German-born scientist who worked at the U.S. atom bomb project as well as at Britain's Harwell nuclear research laboratory. Information passed to the Soviets by Fuchs and another spy, David Greenglass, gave the Soviets crucial new information on a new way to ignite an atomic bomb.
In 1950, Fuchs was sentenced to 14 years for disclosing nuclear secrets. Full Story.
Contrary to the Liberal Orthodoxy of the 70s-90s, there were rational grounds for the Red Scare of the 1950s. The Soviets were active in spying and other activities in the U.S. McCarthy was still a power-hungry demogogue, but there was a bear on the prowl.
29/10: Every Man a King
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.
"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.
24/10: The Feds to the Rescue
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?
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?
17/10: The Problem for Republicans
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)
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)
16/10: Hillary Milhous Clinton
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
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.
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.
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.
