Category: Politics

Just vote on it, already

Sen. Arlen Specter is a genius. How else to describe such brilliant words defending our nation’s immediate need to alter the Constitution in word and spirit to protect the flag:

“I think it’s important to focus on the basic fact that the text of the First Amendment, the text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of Rights is not involved,” Specter argued.

I don’t understand that, so I can only assume he knows more than me. Thank God he’s a United States Senator. Mere mortals who can’t understand what he said shouldn’t be allowed to disagree. Imagine the damage that could cause.

Of course, I am also thankful for Sen. Orrin Hatch.

“They say that flag burning is a rare occurrence; it is not that rare,” he told the chamber. An aide hoisted a large blue poster detailing 17 incidents of flag desecration over three years. Hatch, citing “an ongoing offense against common decency,” read them all. “That’s just mentioning some that we know of; there’s a lot more than that, I’m sure,” he said.

That is 5.67 flag burnings per year, or 0.0000000189 for every man, woman, and child in America. Don’t worry, I’m doing my part being pissed off. And holy crap, am I ever offended by flag burnings that nobody knows about. Sweet Hell, I won’t be able to sleep tonight.

Reckless disregard of our history

Like many people, I saw the scare tactics masquerading as news this weekend surrounding the New York Times. Fox News ran a story with “Is the New York Times risking American lives,” or some such nonsense. I don’t know enough to go in-depth, but I’m always inclined to side with the First Amendment as a default position. That’s why I found this essay particularly interesting. Instapundit found this section particularly useful, in a bit of “gotcha” mentality to the New York Times, I think. I disagree.

Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical.

I don’t believe these stories put America more at risk, for the simple reason that I believe anyone who would attack America is (unfortunately) smart enough to assume all of the top secret programs the New York Times writes about. I think that’s a reasonable assumption for anyone interested in winning against the threat we face, rather than winning against the threat we face, as long as the right team does the ass-kicking. I have no time for partisanship in this war. So, I don’t think the New York Times is putting America at more risk of attack. On the contrary, I suspect it will lead to increased preparedness when intelligent people understand that our enemies must be taken seriously. The anti-bigotry of soft expectations, as the case may be.

As such, I find the second sentence in that excerpt more informative. Every bit of the Constitution protects against theoretical future abuses. That civilization had thousands of years to grasp how dangerous government can be when given power, our Constitution is designed to safeguard us from such future excesses. The founders knew that waiting to protect the people from abuses until after the abuse will only encourage abuse. Hence, the Constitution. And the First Amendment.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

I can read your lip service

I don’t know which passage to laugh at more:

For the past 15 years, progressive free-market politicians have offered an appealing mantra …

After reading a new oxymoron such as “progressive free-market politicians,” I knew I didn’t need to read on for any serious discussion of capitalism. The usual drivel about how the author supports capitalism, but every fair person understands that it’s not perfect and needs a little help, is sure to follow. I’ve heard it before and I know it’s still code for more government intrusion. It’s never possible that government interference in capitalism is causing the problems. Never.

The other laughable part is that supposedly logical conclusion.

Historically, voters turn away from conservative free-market politicians after they conclude that capitalism needs help in living up to its commitment to create widely shared abundance. After World War II, voters in rich countries entered a social democratic bargain in which capitalism became the bedrock of the economy but was tempered by a large public sector and a unionized industrial sector that provided social insurance, education, pensions and health care.

Capitalism has a commitment to create “widely shared abundance”, which conservative free-market politicians ignore. Setting aside government interference as a cause, if you don’t get some of that guarantee of widely shared, for whatever reason (luck, laziness, …), progressive free market politicians will hand you some widely redistributed. In this view, how can anything be a tempered bedrock, especially when adding so many socialist guarantees?

I’d continue, but uncontrollable laughter makes typing impossible.

“You made us do it” is bad government

The editors at Opinion Journal hate liberty. I can think of no other explanation to support this statement in today’s editorial on the now-failed marriage amendment:

We remain opposed to federal interference in this issue, believing that issues of family life and law are best settled in state legislatures.

As opposed to the individual’s home? Why? Given the manner in which state legislatures are dealing with this issue, do I trust them to err on the side of individual rights? Of course not. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the mess that Virginia is trying to pass this November.

States have also devised a range of policies for civil partnerships or other legal rights for gay couples. These innovations reflect the reality that most Americans oppose extending the term “marriage” to gays but are open to other legal arrangements.

The marriage debate demonstrates nothing more than naked majoritarianism. The Constitution does not work that way. Denying rights at the state level because the solution is federalist is still a denial of rights. Why should a gay couple care if their oppressor is the United States Congress or the Virginia General Assembly? Either offer the same marriage benefits to every individual or extract marriage from civil government. No individual should have the right to determine, through government, which rights another individual is allowed to possess. He possesses them from birth. The government can only secure or infringe.

I laugh in your general direction

I thought this might be the dumbest quote I could find regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment Marriage Protection Amendment:

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

More important than terrorism, war, fiscal insanity, the sanctity of the Constitution (hey, wait a minute…), and immigration? Okay. But, as stupid as that quote is, and Louisiana voters should be crying in their grits this morning reading that, unfortunately, one Utah woman made a Herculean attempt to surpass Sen. Vitter. And succeeded:

“If we didn’t believe in miracles, we wouldn’t have spent our vacation money to come here,” said Sandra Rodrigues of Utah, who with her family has been standing outside the Russell Senate Office Building all week, shouting at senators and displaying signs urging “Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.” “If same-sex marriage is endorsed,” she explained, “then you’re going to have children think it’s just another option to have pleasure.”

And I thought there was only one cure for masturbation. A Constitutional amendment will work, too? Who knew?

Wedge politics is the best we can do?

Part of me is beginning to root for this travesty:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

I haven’t changed my opposition to the proposed amendment. It would still be a stain on the Constitution. It would still require, which it would eventually receive, another amendment to repeal it. The process would be long, tedious, and divisive. It’s the antithesis of the American experiment in limited government.

But it could have positive benefits. In the eye of history, its supporters will be seen as the bigoted, anti-liberty meddlers they are. And the amendment, and its future repeal, would be a lesson for future generations in how to truly preserve the rights of all citizens. Of course, we still haven’t learned from the 18th and 21st Amendments.

Never mind. The proposed amendment must die a public death. Again.

Does Mike Folmer know Esther Dietz?

Arguing for the alternative to Ms. Noonan’s argument for a third party, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Mike Folmer suggests fixinig the current incarnation of the Republican Party. While I don’t believe for a moment that would have long-lasting changes, as evidenced by the current version of the Republican Party’s rapid veering from its so-called core principles, the idea of reforming from the inside is understandable. If it meant a repudiation of the current (mis-)understanding of conservatism, it might even be admirable. Consider:

My personal experiences working the campaign trail this past spring made it apparent to me that the political upheaval was due to a coalescing of two fundamental perspectives held by the rank-and-file: Government needed to be reformed; and the state Republican Party needed to be reformed, too.

Conservatives had long been chafing at the fact that an ostensibly conservative Legislature had linked arms with Mr. Rendell to raise income taxes, push up state spending to record levels, and expand both corporate- and social-welfare spending without any apparent means of accountability–while a comprehensive property tax reform package continued to stall in the Legislature.

These people at the grassroots no longer viewed the state Legislature as a servant of the people but as an exclusive club for political insiders. They fumed as the legislators voted to increase their own pensions by 50%, in addition to excessive daily allowances just to show up for work, and at the practice of allowing members to take expensive junkets to resort locations.

Mr. Folmer has the story correct. He’s working the campaign trail, he’s talking to people, he’s listening to what they tell him. It’s all good, and could prove to be quite the turnaround, however long or short the improvement might be. And I almost believed it. Unfortunately, with one late paragraph, Mr. Folmer jumped the rail and showed he’s more interested in wielding power than reforming the state government to conservative, limited-government ideals.

It is also my conviction that while the leadership of the Republican Party is still trying to figure out how it will deal with the fallout from May 16, it is imperative that the GOP come together in time for the Nov. 7 election. There are critical races to win–most notably Rick Santorum’s fight to beat back state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. and keep his U.S. Senate seat, and Lynn Swann’s campaign to upend Ed Rendell and become Pennsylvania’s first black governor.

First, a true reformer would highlight why Lynn Swann would be a great governor, as opposed to mentioning that he’d be the state’s first black governor. That said, anyone remotely interested in Republican principles would distance himself from Sen. Santorum, who is anything but a limited-government conservative. An endorsement for Sen. Santorum is an endorsement for anti-Constitutional social regulation. It’s support for reducing eliminating liberty in all areas where liberty doesn’t adhere to narrow, single-definition values. That is not conservatism. That’s statism. That’s anything but a traditional Republican value. Encouraging its continuation reveals that partisanship trumps legitimate reform.

I’ll stick with libertarianism.

Even a small magnitude would be good

I’ve made it a minor hobby to ridicule Peggy Noonan’s partisanship, but I find every reason to praise today’s column, in which she discusses America’s apparent readiness for a viable third political party. In an ideal world, we’d only need one libertarian party, but we don’t live in such a world. As such, spreading power among as many groups as possible seems to be the best alternative. A governing party without a majority in Congress would be wonderful, precisely for the reason Ms. Noonan states today:

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it’s a serious issue, face it. Don’t play with it.

That paragraph isn’t perfect, but I like its conclusion. There are legitimate issues facing our nation. Rather than be mature, responsible citizens, we continue to elect the same hack politicians because they offer us prizes at the end of the tax rainbow. It’s misguided and destructive. I doubt that a viable third party (libertarian, please) would solve that, but I can’t find an overwhelming reason to believe it would be anything but an improvement.

He’s teaching me to change my instincts… or at least ignore them.

James Taranto, writing in Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web Today column, points to an article titled “Questions Raised About Kerry War Record”.

When John Kerry* ran for president, he offered one compelling qualification for the world’s highest office: He was a hero of the Vietnam War. True, America lost that war–but it was in spite of, rather than because of, Kerry’s battlefield efforts.

Timely, as opposed to partisan, this information enhances my trust that the only liar in Washington operates in the Senate chambers because he couldn’t win the presidency. Oh, and that the New York Times is biased. Shocking.

What’s most important, though, is the context of that all-powerful asterisk. It holds the key to relentless wit and insight. All included must bow before the “gotcha”.

* At least he served in Vietnam, unlike Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid!

The same could be said about two important Republicans. But cheap partisan victories are vital to our national conversation. And only liberals in the media are biased.

Update: Kip at A Stitch in Haste dissected Mr. Taranto’s imbecilic attack on libertarianism, which appeared further down in yesterday’s Best of the Web Today. I’m glad he pointed it out, as I stopped reading the rest of Mr. Taranto’s nonsense after the John Kerry story.

This is an unblemished record

Based on comments from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, should we worry more than we already do?

“The hardest thing to determine is the purely domestic, self-motivated, self-initiating threat from the guy who never talks to anybody, just gets himself wound up over the Internet,” Chertoff said.

By worry, I mean how much longer will it be before the U.S. government takes control of the Internet, with regulations and restrictions, to keep us safe from terrorists? Because a guy who gets wound up by the evening news, that wouldn’t be so bad. It’s the guy who gets wound up over the Internet. We have to stop that. And this administration can do it thanks to absolute powers in wartime.