For anyone who likes to read dueling opinion pieces:
Pete Spiliakos's article The Constitution as a Coward's Shield and Barbarian's Rock, which I posted about earlier purely in terms of constitutional rhetoric, was primarily an attack on Trump.
That attack was parried by Julie Ponzi over at American Greatness.
Moneyshot:
ReplyDelete" If a regulation or law or a treaty (e.g., tax audits, Obamacare, climate change treaties) are made or enforced in ways that are in violation of the Constitution, it is not just a kick in the teeth to Jimmy Madison and the boys; it’s a violation of our rights. "
That's the way to explain it.
Valerie
Well, that depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to me, yep, that's a good way to explain it. That's because you and I probably have very similar ideas of what rights are.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many Americans no longer agree with us about that. Many Americans believe in FDR's Second Bill of Rights a lot more than the old-fashioned first one.
When we explain things to them, we have to take a different approach.
What approach is that? I would like to see FDR's concept ended and repealed, not expanded or managed.
ReplyDeleteI agree, so our job is to convince the majority that that's the right path. Since the majority doesn't seem to share our idea of rights, we can't just automatically appeal to that.
ReplyDeleteWhat approach is that? I would like to see FDR's concept ended and repealed, not expanded or managed.
ReplyDeleteFrom a book I encountered somewhere:
...we have the travesty of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," his "Economic Bill of Rights" of man. This completely ignores the commitment to our inalienable rights already identified in our Declaration of Independence, and it ignores the fact that FDR's manufactured "rights" cannot be achieved by award from any government, which in the end is only an employee of men and so when it gives to one man, which it must do by taking from another, it does so by taking from one of its employers. These "economic rights," and "social rights" that are other than those identified in the American social contract, which a Liberal might assert as belonging to people, are solely the inevitable output of men's efforts when those efforts are carried out within the framework of our inalienable rights. The Liberal, the Progressive, instead asserts that men need expend no effort: government will do for them.
Eric Hines
What approach is that?
ReplyDeleteI'm just talking about rhetorical approaches, not our goals. The point is that we have to consider our audience when we present our arguments. It's a very basic thing, so basic that it doesn't seem worth saying, probably. Not here, anyway. But a lot of Americans have trouble doing this.
Eric, I've come to the conclusion that one reason conservatives have lost so much in the last few generations is that many of them have adopted large chunks of Progressivism. For example:
ReplyDeleteThe Liberal, the Progressive, instead asserts that men need expend no effort: government will do for them.
I think a lot of today's conservatives think if we just elect the right people our problems will be solved. This is a very Progressive attitude.
Depends on who the "right person" is, Tom.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, it's a guy or group of guys who's badly flawed but who can stem the tide.
Sometimes, it's a guy or a group of guys who can roll the tide back. Even if he must use the tools of the state to do so, for instance legislating to rescind regulations and then to rescind the delegation, or one or two key impeachments, or....
Not only is it not over until it's over, it's not over even then, unless we give up. We have two primary conservative tools: elections and revolution. Keep in mind that there are far more elections this fall than just for the White House.
Eric Hines
Well, Eric, I agree with most of what you're saying. But I think we have to add some tools to our kit. The reason we're losing elections, and even when Republicans win they're often not constitutional conservatives, is because we have lost the culture.
ReplyDeleteThe education system K-Ph.D. is dominated by Progressives except in a very few fields like economics, and even there they are economic conservatives and social Progressives.
Virtually the entire entertainment industry is Progressive.
The arts community is dominated by Progressives, including all forms: visual, theater, music, literature, etc.
Both federal and state bureaucracies are Progressive.
In addition to elections and revolution, we need to pick up the tools to retake all of that and add them to our toolbox.
Conservatives seem to hate this, but the revolution is everywhere, everyday. Maybe that's one attitude we need to adopt from Progressivism.
On the other hand, "Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty." Maybe they stole it from us.
We do need to communicate better, no doubt. Which means we need to get out of our ivory towers and go into the 'hoods and talk to the folks directly. In the suburbian libraries, in the inner city diners and street corners.
ReplyDeleteAnd we've got to tell them what we can do for them--and more, how we can help them do for themselves--in practical terms, not only with the theoretical stuff in the passage I quoted. That passage was mostly to the choir to get everyone onto the same page.
And we need to correct this, as you indicated just above.
But the time to start is now, whether the White House is lost to us this time around or not.
Eric Hines
Ya know, I don't usually think about libraries and diners and so forth in this fight, but yeah, you're right. And I think a lot of us have already started! I know you have. That's why I feel like I'm preaching to the choir on this.
ReplyDeleteFrom your linked post:
And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.
That was weird; I was just thinking about writing a post on how we could potentially use state governments to mandate better civics education in our public schools as one way to fight against Progressivism.
I was just thinking about writing a post on how we could potentially use state governments to mandate better civics education in our public schools as one way to fight against Progressivism.
ReplyDeleteAnd we must. Or use state government to jawbone the local districts to do that.
Also use state governments to mandate the same sort of thing at the state colleges and universities.
Using the tools of government to defeat Progressivism and return conservatism to the citizenry.
I look forward to your post.
Eric Hines