but apparently they’re just opposed to Republicans having power, judging by Barack Obama’s attempt to take over the U. S. Census. For a good rundown on why this is illegal and probably unconstitutional, check out Samizdata.Update: Marsha Blackburn’s on it.
Category Archives: Politics
The new American revolution?
Most informed citizens know the Bill of Rights has ten amendments; nowadays, though, most people don’t remember the Tenth Amendment. If you’re one of them, here’s the text:
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.
If you didn’t know that was in the Constitution, don’t kick yourself too hard—to all intents and purposes, our government doesn’t either. (The same is true of the Ninth Amendment, which declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)Now, however, we have the first sign in a very long time that that might be about to change. If Congress won’t recognize the proper sphere of sovereignty of the states, some of the states are thinking about standing up to claim it for themselves.
Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.
Here’s the payoff from the bill introduced in the state of Washington, which follows a number of “Whereas” clauses laying out the historical and constitutional justifications for the bill:
NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
That’s just one example; go to the article and you’ll find links to all the bills that are currently pending in state legislatures. Knowing my old home state as I do, I’ll be surprised if that one passes, but some of these will. Of course, I’m sure the initial response from the Obama administration will be to dismiss or ignore these bills; but if these states have the guts to act on this language and resist (or even seek to roll back) the federal usurpation of state power, we have a shot at reviving federalism. After all, the Tenth Amendment may be treated like a dead letter, but it’s still in the Constitution; the Obama administration may succeed in buying states off, but if any of them hang in there and refuse to give up their Tenth Amendment claim, as long as they pick an issue on which they’re on firm ground, it would be hard to make a constitutional case against them.It’s encouraging to see state governments asserting themselves as independent and responsible political entities, rather than as lapdogs of D.C.; here’s hoping it keeps up.HT: Shane Vander Hart
Isn’t the election over?
And didn’t Barack Obama win? And if so, shouldn’t somebody clue him in so he can stop campaigning and start governing?If you’re wondering that, too, after President Obama’s appearance in our neck of the woods to campaign for the so-called “stimulus” bill, take heart, because we’re not alone in our reaction. Granted, he’s a very effective campaigner, and his campaign appearance might do the trick—this time. Over the long haul, though, you can’t govern a country by giving stump speeches. Making your case to the American people is an important part of the process, true (Ronald Reagan was a past master at this), but while that may help you get the rudder over to keep the nation on the course you want, it’s not going to do much to propel the ship. The president needs to have more in his arsenal than going out and holding campaign rallies if he wants to have a successful term in office.The question is, why is President Obama still operating in campaign mode rather than in governing mode? I’m tempted to say that it’s because campaigning privileges style over substance, and that plays to his strengths. He knows how to campaign effectively, but when it comes down to getting things done, put me down as one of the increasing numbers who don’t believe he really knows what he wants to get done, let alone how. How else do you explain the fact that he articulated an ambitious plan for the stimulus package, then not only didn’t have anyone in his administration draft legislation to enact his plan, but rather let the House Democrats write a vastly different bill that doesn’t meet any of the standards and qualifications he laid out—and is now laying all his political capital on the line to defend that very different bill? This is bad governance; but it’s right in line with the way he ran his campaign. Unfortunately, now it’s time and past time for him to stop campaigning and start governing.
This makes sense
One of the things that’s been hard for me to understand about our president is how all his talk of bipartisanship—and his apparent firm belief in his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion—squared with his extremely partisan voting record. In her column today, Carol Platt Liebau makes a point that I think explains this:
From his days on The Harvard Law Review forward, Barack Obama gained a reputation for “bipartisanship.” The problem? His much vaunted bridge-building was always a matter more of style than of substance. He would treat those who disagreed with him with great politeness and civility, listen their views, and then ignore them.In environments like a law school campus, or Chicago city politics, or Illinois state politics—where liberals overwhelmingly outnumber conservatives—bipartisan words, without action, are enough. Where conservatives are otherwise completely disregarded and routinely treated with contempt, respectful words can secure their support and even a certain degree of affection. Throughout his life, Barack Obama has blossomed primarily in liberal hothouses; perhaps it’s no surprise that he concluded that a little lip service would fulfill the demands of bipartisanship. . . .Perhaps that’s why the President believed that simply talking to Republicans would be enough to secure their support for the stimulus package, even though the final product reflected none of their input.
Of course, as she goes on to note, real bipartisanship requires more than that—and more than that the Obama-Pelosi administration wasn’t willing to give. You can always find a few marginal members of the GOP to pick off, but that’s all they could manage; the result isn’t real bipartisanship, it’s what we might call “RINO bipartisanship” (kudos to Glenn Foden):
Could the political pot boil over?
I haven’t posted on Yuval Levin’s essay on “The Meaning of Sarah Palin,” in part because for all the things he gets right, he makes one critical error: he mistakes Gov. Palin as “handled” and portrayed by the McCain campaign for Gov. Palin as she actually is. He thus ends up blaming her for failing to do things which in fact she was prevented from doing (or attempting to do, at any rate) by folks like Nicolle Wallace. I was, however, quite interested by William Jacobson’s comment on Levin’s article:
The politics in this country is like a simmering pot. The boiling water represents the desire of people to be left alone and to make their own way in life. The cover on the pot is the set of liberal assumptions which tells people that they have no right to lead life the way they want, and that those who have assumed the reigns of power know better. My sense is that the tighter that lid is pressed—by attacking people like Sarah Palin, by forcing government into every aspect of our lives, by appointing people like Tom Daschle who have milked the system dry—the more likely it is the pot will boil over.
The one point where I would disagree with him, regretfully, is that I don’t think we can simply call those assumptions “liberal”; functionally speaking, the GOP has operated in much the same fashion over the last number of years—which is probably why the last two elections have pretty well blown the party out of the water. (Plus, of course, while conservatism explicitly disavows the idea that “those who have assumed the reigns of power know better,” our liberal critics would accuse conservatives of being those who “tell people that they have no right to lead life the way they want,” and there are certain areas in which they have a case; only the purest of libertarians could really duck such a charge completely.) Taken as a whole, though, I think Dr. Jacobson is on to something; if he is, we might have another Jacksonian revolution coming. (This time with a woman of the frontier in the lead, mayhap?)
A thought or two in response to Culture11
There’s been a fair bit of chatter recently in certain conservative circles about the demise of the website Culture11. I have to be honest, I read this with a certain amount of bemusement, since (as Mencken might have put it) I must confess I never knew Lord Jones was alive to begin with; I’m not sure if that makes me un-hip, or what—but then, as a mainline pastor in small-town north-central Indiana, I’m probably un-hip by definition anyway, so I’m not too worried.In any case, I’ll confess that what strikes me about the conversation over the demise of this website is all the heavy breathing over the word “conservative.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one to get all bent out of shape over the use of labels; they’re useful shorthand. I’m perfectly content to be called a conservative, because in this context, that’s the label generally used for people who believe what I believe; if “liberal” still carried its classical meaning, I’d be perfectly content to be called that, too. It saves lengthy explanations, and that’s useful.
The conversation over Culture11, though, has a different quality, with lots of talk about the “alternative right,” what it means to be a “true conservative,” the deriding of “neocon echo chambers” and the like. What I see here, besides infighting and back-stabbing, is a concern for the label as such, and an almost Jacobin impulse to ideological purity—manifested, since the guillotine isn’t actually an option, by loud declarations of excommunication of the heretics. I see, quite frankly, a great deal of narrowness of perspective, marked by chronological snobbery (“that’s so 2001-04”) and snobbery of provenance (if it comes from Person X, or Group X—such as “the 2nd and 3rd generation neocons who rule the roost on FOX,” who are “bereft of all discernible signs of culture”—then it must be bad), and a vast ugliness of attitude. There’s precious little grace shown here toward those with whom people disagree, only the attitude that “if you aren’t my definition of conservative, then you’re the enemy just like everyone else.”Now, granted, none of these folks know me from a hole in the ground (I think I commented on Joe Carter’s blog once or twice, but that’s about it), so my reaction to this spat doesn’t really matter any; but I know what I’d say to these folks if I could, or to anyone else who finds themselves arguing in this sort of spirit.Grow up. Search for truth as best you can, come to the best conclusions you can reach, and don’t worry about who else holds them, or whether they’re sufficiently contemporary, or any of that junk. That kind of thing is, to be blunt, juvenile. Argue your positions with respect for those who disagree, and with openness to learn from them—and remember that politics and culture are pragmatic arenas, and that to get anything done, you have to build alliances and forge coalitions; hyper-puritanism leads finally to self-isolation, and the only door out of that trap is the abandonment of all the principles for which you fought in the first place. Don’t pronounce anathemas on those who agree with you on most things—that, too, is juvenile; find common ground, and work with them. Remember, you too are imperfect; that’s why we all need grace.
The gang that couldn’t govern straight
Never put yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country fails.
—Thomas Friedman
It hasn’t been a good start for the new administration. In the first couple weeks, we’ve seen them announce standards and then not keep them; we’ve seen two of Barack Obama’s nominees withdraw for legal and ethical reasons (following another nominee who had previously done so, and yet another who should have); we’ve seen the House Democrats running the show on his first big piece of legislation, which consequently has turned into a legislative albatross; we’ve seen him back down on some aspects of that legislation after some complaints from our allies; we’ve seen the response to the big ice storm botched; we’ve seen the appointment of a new ambassador to Iraq botched (which is not to say that Gen. Anthony Zinni would have been a better choice than Christopher Hill—I have no reason to think he would have been—but rather that offering a guy a job, thanking him for accepting it, telling him to get ready to go to work, and then actually hiring someone else behind his back without letting him know you’ve done it is no way to run a railroad); we’ve seen Iran rattling sabers, apparently emboldened by the President’s comments; and unfortunately, we’ve seen all this addressed by a McClellan-esque disaster of a press secretary who isn’t helping his administration at all. Only two weeks in, and some people are already deeply worried, while others are asking, “Who is Barack Obama?” and others yet are beginning to think that the administration is “on the verge of combining the competency of Carter and the ethics of Nixon.”For my part, I don’t think the most pessimistic talk is warranted—yet. Granted, no recent administration has gotten off to this bumpy a start, but false starts and missteps aren’t uncommon for new administrations; after all, you can’t really rehearse this. (Compare this article on the beginning of the Bush 43 administration, which managed the transition much better than the Obama administration has so far—courtesy of Dick Cheney, who had already seen it all and done most of it—but had some similar legislative splats.) These are bright people, and it’s perfectly reasonable to hope and expect that they’ll figure out what they need to figure out, and do a better job of managing the job as time goes on. On the other hand, we’ve seen a few troubling trends from the campaign repeating themselves in the early days of the administration, most notably President Obama’s tendency to duck unpleasant conversations—not telling Tom Daschle to withdraw his nomination, not telling Gen. Zinni he wasn’t getting the job after all, not going to Kentucky, not answering questions on William Lynn, and so on. As such, there’s reason for concern that some of these problems may persist, and that the comparisons to President Carter may ultimately prove out. That would be a bad thing for the country; and so, as a believer in Thomas Friedman’s dictum, I will be (along with many others I know) praying it doesn’t happen.
Why America needs Sarah Palin, Part II
- Fiscally responsible leadership, for Alaska and the nation
- A vision and perspective from outside the Northeastern elite
- A pro-life vision which is not only political, but personal, as seen in the lives of her youngest son, Trig, and her grandson, Tripp
Republican stupidity continues
The silver lining to the storm clouds that washed away so much of the GOP in 2006 and 2008 is that in the process they washed away many of the people responsible for shipwrecking the party, and most of the illusions those people promulgated. Unfortunately, that’s only “many” and “most,” not all, and we do have some big-government Republican quislings still hanging around. One of those guys is Charlie Crist, governor of Florida; I cringed every time he was mentioned as a potential running mate for John McCain, I cringe every time I hear him mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2012, and with this latest stunt of his, he should be ashamed to call himself a Republican. I’d say he ought to just change parties and be done with it, except that I’m not sure the Democrats would want him either. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal sums it up:
Who needs Mother Nature to cause a catastrophe? Florida’s politicians are busy creating an unnatural disaster in their state insurance market that will blow away taxpayers when the next big hurricane hits. And we mean taxpayers across America.Last month State Farm pulled the plug on its 1.2 million homeowner policies in Florida, citing the state’s punishing price controls. The state’s largest insurer joins a raft of competitors that have already reduced or dumped their property and casualty business in the Sunshine State, including Prudential, Allstate, Nationwide and USAA. This is the inevitable result of Governor Charlie Crist’s drive to control property-insurance premiums. The Republican also lobbied his GOP legislature to make the state government a giant competitor in the market, undercutting private insurers. . . .Every month in Florida, State Farm loses $20 million. So it finally said, No mas.Meanwhile, Floridians have been signing up with Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the state-run insurer that Mr. Crist unleashed in 2007. Because it has an implicit taxpayer guarantee, and because its actuarial assumptions are, well, loose, Citizens can offer lower premiums than private competitors can. Citizens has become the largest insurer in the state, with 1.1 million policies.Mr. Crist has thus guaranteed that Floridians, rather than the global insurance industry, will be on the hook for property damage when the next Katrina hits. Citizens is facing more than $400 billion in potential exposure, yet Citizens Chief Financial Officer Sharon Binnun was recently cited in the South Florida Sun Sentinel as saying it had only $3.4 billion in net assets. . . .Some 25% of the coastal property in U.S. hurricane zones is located in Florida, and another storm is inevitable. To pay for those claims when they come, Mr. Crist will either have to raise taxes on Floridians, or beg Congress for a rescue. . . .It’s scary to imagine the bill taxpayers will get when the next big hurricane hits Florida. It’s even scarier to think Mr. Crist is being touted as a potential GOP candidate for the White House.
No kidding.