Columnist George Will offered three reasons why conservatives should temper their despondency about the election results:
“First, they were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism. Second, they admire market rationality, and the political market has worked. Third, on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance Tuesday.”
On the first point, Will wrote: “They are guilty of apostasy from conservative principles at home (frugality, limited government) and embrace of anti-conservative principles abroad (nation-building grandiosity pursued incompetently).”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
124 Comments
And the Republicans were also rocked with scandals – both sex and bribery scandals. They were filled with corruption of power and greed. This Iraq War has been mishandled from day 1 and the majority of Americans saw through the Republicans mantra of “family values” as being just lipservice.
That was what happened to the GOP and it could not have happened to a better bunch of idiots.
I have to agree with George on this one: The repukes forgot their roots. Absolute power, etc. Lets hope the dems don’t forget theirs or history is likely to repeat itself (again).
“The Democratic Party, a slow learner but educable, has dropped the subject of gun control and welcomed candidates opposed to parts or even all of the abortion rights agenda.”
The above from the Will article. Dems learned that you can’t influence things if you have no real power. You have to be where the majority of voters are. If there is a real shift in attitude on abortion by the Dems, it will be a real boon to their chances of holding their power beyond two years. I am doubtful.
He also makes a good point about the Republicans abandoning conservative principles and getting hammered for it. If you are seen as the same big spenders as Democrats, and have the additional weight of scandal and an unpopular war, the electorate is going to have little reason to vote for you.
I’m unimpressed by Will’s argument. It’s the flipside of the far left’s tired argument that the reason Dems lose elections is because they’re not liberal enough. Every ideologue, right or left, buys this pitch because it feels good, usually ignoring mountains of electoral evidence. Did Santorum, Allen, Hayworth, Dewine really lose because they weren’t conservative enough? I don’t think so. GOP candidates suffered largely because the Administration made an ill-fated choice to take out Saddam and rebuild Iraq in our own image. 3 1/2 years later, the chickens came home to roost.
If one defines Iraq as a grand Wilsonian liberal scheme, and views Dem reluctance toward this adventurism as Jeffersonian conservatism, perhaps Will has a valid point on this issue. However, Dems didn’t run as fiscal or social conservatives (except, perhaps, Harold Ford, who lost). The GOP took a hit because they were too conservative and therefore out of step with moderates and independents.
kreiz
Schumer, Emanuel engineer party’s win
“The two chairmen recruited conservatives who won in Republican-leaning districts and states, raised millions more than when the political parties had it easier with soft money and carefully picked their targets in the campaign’s closing days with a last-minute infusion of cash.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_el_ge/winning_strategists_1
The rush to explain the neo-cons and Bushies not being conservative enough is downright comical. They were conservative enough in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Pat Buchanan said it too, so it must be wrong. What happened?They got us into an illegitimate quagmire of a war, allowed rogue countries to gain power almost at will, paid no attention to important issues at home (global warming, health care), and were hugely corrupt. Generally incompetent all around, one could say.Not conservative enough?! Will typifies the remarkable but too often typical ability of conservatives to bury their heads in the ideological sand and miss the point right in front of their faces.
gastr1
Pro-gun, anti-abortion and fiscally conservative: meet the neo-Dems
“The conservative Democrats, or new Democrats as they are sometimes called, were disproportionately represented in the most highly contested races against Republicans, and are likely to form a substantial bloc within the new members.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329623955-122525,00.html
“(nation-building grandiosity pursued incompetently).”
The above is politicalspeak for:AGGRESIVE STUPIDITY.
THE 2006 CAMPAIGN; In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right
Democrats eager to win back control of House turn to conservative and moderate candidates who fit profiles of their districts more closely than profile of national party; if such candidates win, they may be expected to side with Republicans and Bush White House, leading to tensions between party’s new centrists and its more liberal political base; Democratic officials say they searched for candidates with greatest possiblity of winning against Republicans, and wound up with number who reflect more moderate views
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7061EFC395B0C738FDDA90994DE404482
Odd, they used to call us the ‘Silent Majority’ back in Nixon’s era. “Those, in any country the bulk of the population, who are assumed to have sensible, moderate opinions though they do not trouble to express them publicly.”
Now that we speak out, they call us repugs, repukes, Bushbots, religious freaks, religious nuts, and still more juvenile name-calling.
I would say the Silent Majority is a better fit now as some did not approve of the War in Iraq, but did not speak out on it.
If the Democrats think they got people to side with them on issues, they better take into account that the political victory was very narrow and would never occurred if the Silent Majority had not rolled over.
So be careful with the name calling Democrats, you may be offending part of your future voting base. That is, if you continue to clean up your far left activism.
Let the extreme left and right form their own political parties.Democrats have had to carry that leftist baggage far too long.
Wanna stay strong? Dump the far left.
Will is wrong. Their party had moved too far to the right, not representing the moderate conservatives anymore, but dictating to them. For the party to come back, they will have to clean it up. If they try to stay the course it will be decades before they return. They never would have gotten power in the first place if Clinton had kept his zipper up.
The GOP moved too far out into wierdville. I don’t know that their policies of government control over personal lives and pre-emtive wars in building an empire can really be called conservative.
The labels just don’t work any more.
Krauthammer
“But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.
This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/tuesdays_election_was_a_vote_o.html
He’s right. Many fiscal conservatives were bent out of shape over the massive spending, as well they should be. Democrats do believe in social programs, but we don’t believe in breaking the bank to do it. The problem with that is that it does require tax dollars to pay for everything. I don’t think the American public completely understands that for every federal dollar given to a road, school, prison, or disabled, old, ambulances…those are things we have to pay for through taxes. And we SHOULD because we’re a civilized society. We should have to look after our own.
This congress put so much money to pet projects that they made the dems more fiscally conservative. That’s what happens when you get greedy republicans in the driver’s seat. At least dems push to benefit the poor instead of the wealthy.
What I see in the future is many fiscal conservative republicans dumping the republican party for the libertarian party or democrats. I can deal with that. It’s the social conservatives that just don’t get it.
I will make it official. Right here, right now. I am changing my nic. My brother warned me that the “Hotlick” nic (I’m a poet) might be looked at as a veiled sexual or somehow nasty name. While, as I have explained in previous posts, that it was only a nickname I got from guitar playing, my brother was right.My email is the same, but I am now Fleettwood.F-L-double E-double T-double U-double O-D.George Will is right. The true conservative didn’t like the spending, didn’t like Bush’s idiotic stand on ILLEGAL immigration, the war (while still the right thing to do) hasn’t been going as well as we all wish.We seem to have forgotten Reagan and Goldwater (Goldwater before he went crazy). Once we remember to remember our roots, we will be fine.
Fleettwood
Some issues – Liberal or Conservative?
ID for voting – should be required. The drivers license people also give picture IDs – use that.
Taxes – should ‘generally’ be sufficient to cover spending. Deficits should only occur during steep economic downturns (Keynes)
Equal opportunity – need to support public education and make sure it is equally available.
Equal outcomes – NOT!
Pre-emtive war just because I want to – NOT!
Retaliate against a country that attacks us – IN SPADES!
Guns – background checks for peomits. Don’t want kids, kooks and crooks getting them.
Concealed carry – somewhat tighter peomitting including training.
English – definitely. Teach immigratn children English in school as primary; then follow with subject instruction in English.
“Gay rights” – law should make no distinction on orientation. Replace marriage (ecclesiastical) with union (civil)
Merry Christmas – displays of various religions allowed, even on public property, as long as paid for privately.
Pledge to Flag – UNDER GOD.
Prayer in school – voluntary; not organized by teachers etc.
Creation/evolution – the best science we have is evolution. Creation can be taught in comparative religion classed.
So, liberal? Conservative?
but i’ll miss calling you hot licky dicky!
Ok, so I guess I can call you Fleets Enema. (yeah that’s really an enema).
:D
Middle of the road hmm. I disagree with lots of your views. I don’t think the majority should get to choose what religion the town gets to put forth, nor the majority of students who get to exclude kids who aren’t that religion. Schools, like workplaces should be bully free from religion.
Under God was added to the pledge, it wasn’t an original part of the pledge, which was created by a minister who left out God intentionally. He wanted a piece patriotic to all, indivisible by religious inference.
clarification – the displays would have to be inclusive, not exclusive. There is room for a Menorah and a Santa along with the Nativity. And prayer in school should be private. Also i would allow various religious student clubs to meet on school grounds. The flagpole thing is fine.
A lot of fine lines in this area – almost case-by-case.
I am just laughing at heckie’s spin to salvage some sort of win for the cons.
Whatever heckie. Like hank said, “dont worry, the adults are in charge”.
Spin it however you want to make yourself feel better. I suggest you just sit back and watch how competent government can work. Of course, it’s gonna take a long time to clean up the mess your boys have made, both at home and abroad.
And who wants to bet that the cons here will be whining that we dont clean up their mess fast enough?
Oh, and btw, dont bitch if taxes go up. It is YOUR reckless spending that is gonna come home to roost. You charged up the national credit card. Now someone else will have to pay the bill while you sit on the sidelines and jeer.
If you hadnt run it up, we wouldnt have to pay for it, now would we? I guess your guys never heard of “pay as you go”. They’d make lousy farmers for sure.
I hope the voters KEEP holding government to a high standard. And elected officials.
And if the dem’s cant be competent AND clean, then throw their asses out in two years.
That isnt liberalism. That’s just common sense.
Something that’s been in short supply in the halls of government.
Is THIS conservative?
The List: Private Profits in IraqPage 1 of 1Posted November 2006The U.S. government has entrusted billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction funds to outside contractors. But how is all that money actually being spent? In this week’s List, FP takes a look at some of the major missteps made by private firms in Iraq.
much more …
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/09/private-profits-in-iraq/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreignpolicy.com%2Fstory%2Fcms.php%3Fstory_id%3D3628&frame=true
Um, yeah! What ksfarmgrrl said!
The contortions really are something to behold, particularly Heckler’s. When liberals win, conservatives win–when conservatives lose, conservatives win–up is down.
It really is quite amusing to listen to y’all. But I guess that’s what happens when the ten thousand right-wing pundit monkeys sit in their room with their ten thousand typewriters and have to concoct some sort of justifying rationale that allows them to ignore the cognitive dissonance of having had their collective asses just handed to them by Howard Dean.
political_mom, that’s some funny shit regarding “the Fleettwood formerly known as hotlick(er).”
And, just so you all see it, here’s the rhyme looping in my brain:
Dear Republicans,
We kicked your asses!We kicked your asses!Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!
So much for Karl Rove’s ‘ten thousand year reich’–er, I mean, ‘permanent Republican majority.’
I still wonder about:
There is a difference between “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Abortion”. So those that advocate pro choice are not necessarily pro or anti abortion – they recognize it as a moral issue only relative to the parties involved, not any political or religious group. Well OK, I don’t really wonder about it — I’m sure a time worn discussion.
and
… can’t understand how women can be Christian Conservative Republicans and allow a political party or religious group to take away their right to choose … anything. Don’t some Christian Conservative communities encourage thier young men to sow their “wild oats” as a right of passage into manhood and get it out of thier system before marriage. But they don’t do the same for young women.
Just some thoughts on a cold blustery Kansas morning.
Independent …..
Can the editors of the blog add a spell check?
We haven’t heard from Karl Rove regarding those 68 special polls he was monitoring that told him his guys were going to hold the Senate & House.
Getting refunds, Karl?Wailing and gnashing of teeth?Ashes & sackcloth?
gster,
No; he’s taking it out on The Gimp he keeps in the White House basement.
Poor Gimp.
Win one for the gimper?
But Hmm, private prayer in school is already ok. Nobody can control what someone thinks. They just don’t have to share it with the class.
Think about it this way…you work for a man who every morning has all his staff (except you of course- it’s not mandatory) bow down to pray to Allah. Tell me that wouldn’t make your work environment uncomfortable. The coworkers are always excluding you because of your religion. That really does happen in schools, where the kids are even more discriminatory. It’s best just to leave out the religion entirely.
Why should we allow religious groups to meet at school, isn’t that what churches are for?
We pay to have elections at non governmental buildings don’t we? How much could we save if we used National Guard armories, school gymnasiums, large rooms in Federal / county / city buildings?
I agree p-mom. That is why the prayer should not be public. I have a co-worker who reads her Bible during break. Another who reads his Quran. No problem with either. And yes, private prayer has always been allowed – contary to what the Rush O’hannity bunch claim.
As for the clubs – in many cases the school is a better location. I place them in the same catagory as the chess club.
ken – problem is they are less dispersed. Schools are not as available on weekdays.
Again, JM, we don’t need you to tell us how to run our party.
And the far left, as does the far right, keeps the middle on its toes. They aren’t afraid to speak out, not afraid of rocking boats. And, in the end, the middle starts listening to them and cherry-picks the best ideas.
kfg
No spin just the facts, some of them from the mouths of Schumer and Emanual.
If imagining the election as a Liberal tidal wave makes it easier to get through your day then knock yourself out. Delusions can be fun and relaxing.
Well has anyone noticed all the verbose conservative asshats who keep harping on:”The Dems are gonna’ impeach and investigate us in an unfair way!”, meme?
It’s so damned transparent that they are trying to villanize anybody who stands up to GOP lawbreakers!
Doesn’t anybody remember,Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton!!
That poor schmuck got a bj and they wanted him hanged.Now these asshats have trashed the constitution, broken numerous federal and international laws,but if we call them on it,it’s evil and unamerican.Now that the poop hit the fan,they wanna be Rodney King all of a sudden?It’s fucking pathetic to see BillO treating dems like little schoolkids who just pissed in class. That’s all ya’ hear from his bully pulpit, that they’re gonna stalemate govt with investigations.What obvious phony bullshit he’s putting out already, to influence public opinion about ENFORCING THE LAW!
Heckler,
Phony argument. Nobody said it was a ‘liberal tidal wave.’
I think Americans want good, clean government, and that they’d seen enough to know that Republicans weren’t going to deliver.
Tracy,
Indeed. Part of good government, by the way, is oversight, investigation, and putting the blame where it belongs.
If Republicans hadn’t let things go so long without oversight, there wouldn’t be such a crying need to look into so many areas. Democrats should not be shy about using their power to find out what the dollars of American taxpayers were used for, and to find out how current and former officials used their powers to break the law and to mislead the American public.
Republicans refused to do the peoples’ business. They ought to have the decency to stand aside while the Democrats do so.
PeeMom,You’re kidding, right? Or, maybe you just truly ARE that dumb:
“What I see in the future is many fiscal conservative republicans dumping the republican party for the libertarian party or democrats.”
There is no way on God’s green earth that conservatives are going to leave the party. You can fantasize and pray (oh wait, you guys don’t pray)…
Count on this: while our party was emasculated by over-spending, scandal and an Iraqi populus that doesn’t seem to want to become self-secure, conservative values still out-weigh those fostered by the secular progressives.
Virtually every president’s party loses seats in mid-term elections. Many factors contributed in 2006 – but none of them point to a demise of the GOP or a plan to ‘rush to the middle’.
Personally, I think this is a much needed correction. Americans don’t want scandal. They don’t want big spenders. They want a resolution to the Iraq war. Our party strayed from our ideals, and it’s time to return.
I think we can build a strong argument to holding elections on weekends — more people would vote? and more poll workers might be available ?
So what about the lawbreakers, NUT?GW is gonna try to gut the FISA law instead of obeying it.And he doesn’t have long to get this, and the Bolton nomination pushed through.
I could care less about getting vindictive.I just want the law to apply to ALL with a fair and even hand.(pipe dream, I know)
Aww poor testicles. I guess you’ve been wrong all the other times, so what makes this any different?
Did you not notice that almost all of the social issue initiatives on the ballots got passed (with the exception of the gay marriage thing). That means they needed a majority.
everything we libs said would happen with Bush and republicons in power happened. It wasn’t fortune-telling or ESP, it was those of us who pay attention saw the writing on the wall long before it was popular. Why is that? Because those are the very things Republicons stand for. And people are sick of it.
Kline LOST because of his social values, not his fiscal values. In Kansas. And he didn’t lose by a small margin either.
KsFlogNut
Spin it all you want, but it wasn’t a correction, it was the Amercian people fed up with all the GOP crap that was going on. We dems have a shot now, it is up to us not to screw it up. And if we do, we deserve to lose.
Just the way you guys lost.
CF
KFG sure seems to think it was, I believe she used the word Tsunami.
What’s going to be fun over the next 2 years is to see how Pelosi handles the Barking MoonBats on the left wing. Can she put forth a front of moderation and prevent the crazies on the left from scaring away moderate voters in 2008?
I guess we won’t be hearing much about Harry Reids land shenanigans any time soon.
KSGolfnut,
I disagree. The American people believe in their government. Conservatives don’t. This makes them uniquely unsuited to running government. The American people have seen this and made their decision.
This isn’t a small problem–it’s a fundamental challenge to conservative ideology. Americans want to be secure economically, medically, and socially as well as militarily. They expect government to act on their behalf to make this possible. If you don’t think this is true, consider how Bush’s attempts to ‘reform’ social security by destroying went down in flames–with a Republican Congress.
I’m happy if all you conservatives go on telling yourselves your delusional story about how when American voters choose Democrats, they’re really choosing conservatives. Enjoy your feast of words. I hope it insulates you from self-examination and contributes to future Democratic victories in the race for the Presidency.
“Movement conservatism” now officially belongs on the dust-heap of history.
TESTICLES?Wasn’t he a Greek hero or sumpin’?
Yes, the conservatives beat themselves. I do believe that a lot of it was the people saying that until you get back to the ideals of conservative then you will not have a job, we’ll let the other guy do it, no matter how much we’ll have to hold our nose.
I do have one question for ksfarmgirl though. I thought it was only the wealthy that taxes were going to go up?
I don’t think so. I live in a state that just went ALL democrat. Gov, House and Senate. Listening to the acceptance speech, he was saying blah, blah, blah, but all I heard was THIS IS GONNA COST YOU. Also not ONE word about illegal immigration OR how to effectively fund the state police, which we don’t even have 24 hour coverage.
I know why the Republicans lost. To much spending, NOT NEAR a strong enough effort on the war. Iraqi figures should be much, much higher. YOU GO INTO A WAR TO WIN, not to see if you can PC your way through it. And certainly not letting Europe decide what your battleplan is.
AND illegal immigration. I don’t recall who it was that called into Laura Ingram on 9-11-06 and said that if you had told him on 9-12-01 that 5 years later our borders would still be this porus, he wouldn’t have believed you. I agree with that. This is a dreadful shame.
The dems won, but I definately don’t think it was because of their policies or plans, BECAUSE I haven’t heard any in 6 years. Had the dems lost I would say that that was the reason. For 6 years now, all I’ve heard from the dems is WE HATE BUSH. Thats it.
Oh we’ll be watching alright. I’ve already started preparing. I’ve already order extra checks for all the taxes, fees, assessments and such coming down the pike. I refuse to get a prayer rug or measure my wife for a burka, I think the government should pay for that. I don’t know whether to get a gun or not. I mean the police around here are already hamstrung by monday morning quarterbacking, that I think eventually their weapons will be taken from them. But if I get a gun, Billary will probably take that from me. Oh well, what to do.That’s another question I have. When the repubs take over the dems can just run off to Europe or Cuba or Venezuala. Where can conservative repubs run off to now?
It may take 2 years, it may take longer but eventually a true strong conservative movement will come back but next time they will not be given as much leeway as the recent repubs have been given.
And a bit of friendly advice. Catching or killing OBL, is not the magic bullet ALOT of dems have put out there.
Oh hey Golf Testicles, why did you chase me over to this blog? I have never seen you post to another person here except me, and rarely on the other board. I think you love me and are stalking me. There are plenty of others who hold my ideals, how come you don’t pick fights with them too? What’s wrong, can’t pick a fight with a man?
Good job GolfNut-I have a lot of Libertarian ideas, but that’s not how to vote.Overspending and scandal are easily fixed. The Iraq war is something else.Once the people get a load of the left wing of the democratic party …A few tweaks and we are BACK, BABY!
Heckler,
Posts crossed.
Interesting that you’re now in agreement that Speaker Pelosi is a moderate. Just last week she was a San Francisco liberal. But I agree that she’ll have to exercise serious control over the Democrats. I’m interested to see how the fight for Majority Leader is shaping up between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer. I detest Hoyer–way too much of an insider–and I think Murtha is the best public face for Democrats on issues of foreign policy including Iraq.
And no, I expect the right-wing media will now get out their knives to go after Harry Reid’s land dealings in Nevada.
Gene Raston,
You could do like George Bush and buy 98,000 acres in Paraguay.
CF
Woooo buddie. I never said Pelosi is a moderate. She better be smart enough to come across as one. Schumer and Emanual understand it. Bill Clinton understood it.
As Krauthammer stated in his column, politics in the U.S. is played between the 40 yard lines. If moderate voters get the impressing the Dems in the House are playing with themselves at the 10 yard line they are toast.
cf is exactly wrong with the Murtha choice. If I wanted to hurt the democrats (and I do) I would pick Murtha for you.I don’t care much for the “extreme” tag, but I would give it to him.
I view this election as a vote of no-confidence by a majority of the voters; i.e., Bush and his ideas were essentially FIRED!
P Mom,I believe KsGolfNut likes to pick fights then try to impress others with his ’superior’ knowledge. Just don’t feed the troll.
Something interesting I read yesterday. I don’t remember who wrote it or where I saw it.
Someone crunched these numbers.In a nation of 175,000,000 voters a swing of 50,000 votes the other way would have held the Republican majority in both houses.
Food for perspective.
We play between the 40’s.
The American people have learned that conservatism means conserving money and power to those who already have money and power. They are sick of that.They have learned that under conservatives, the “American dream” means yelling “How high?!” when the boss says “Jump”. They are sick of that as well.
We have been is a conservative swamp for well on 25 years now. That swamp will now begin to be drained.
JR
So just what do you think of Nancy’s treatment of her non-union workers?
…waits for the other shoe to drop.
Heckler,
What are employees at Auberge du Soleil and Piatti paid?
For those of you who did not see the Crowson cartoon:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/
What I am wondering is who most strongly influences GW now?1) his father – as evidenced by the Baker report interest, dumping of Rumsfeld, and the Gates appointment,or2)Cheney – given the Bolton renomination,or3) the influence from both is about equal.
I am going with number one given how much has changed.
Today’s cartoon was one of Richard’s best. I laughed and laughed, then cut it out and posted it on my office wall.
“But the great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting. It was an event-driven election that produced the shift of power one would expect when a finely balanced electorate swings mildly one way or the other.”
Krauthammer is nothing if not consistent. This was a once in a century event–both houses of Congress flipping to the opposition against the White House. Hasn’t happened since Wilson.
As for Will, gastr1 is exactly right. What was Will doing when this misAdministration ran up the national debt, when they invaded Iraq, when they ran the Constitution through a paper shredder . . .
Cheering them on, that’s what.
Wait, so the Republicans lost because they weren’t ‘conservative’ (whatever that means) enough? Uhhh, I hate to break it to you George, we have seen the farthest right government in US history for the last five years. They governed with only one segment of the population (their base) in mind and gave a big ‘Fuck You’ to everyone else. And look how great that turned out!
Bottom line: the right-wing ideology is a complete failure at governing. But hell, if you want to move even farther right, be my guest. You’ll just be ensuring victory for moderate Democrats.
The sad fact is that conservatives when their in power rarely act like conservatives they talk a good talk on conservative principles but rarely act on them.Nixon gave us OSHA,EPA,DEA,SSIRegan the “god” of conservativemade the VA a cabinet post, runaway deficits, and huge spending increases in military spending despite the claims of some on the right the military is a part of the government. Also as Gov. of California Reagan had no problem enacting a major gun restriction law.Bush SR. raised taxesBush Jr. with a republican congress spent at a greater rate than any other congress. Bush never has vetoed any wasteful spending bill. How do Medicare plan D. Patriot act I and II and creating and yet another cabinet dept Homeland security reducing the size of government
FYI, the bolton nomination has been killed by Sen. Chaffee(R). It took all of an hour after it was announced for him to come forward and say that. As for the topic of this thread, this guy is so full of it, his eyes are brown! Here are 2 responses. I’m not going to post them in their entirety, but they are good reads.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/10/112111/08http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/9/184657/653
Dave,Nothing on the dailykos is “a good read”
NUT, I don’t read Kos.Have any other suggested sites?
tracy-Why don’t you read Kos?
I love Kos, no surprise huh?
I vote to have George Will printed in the Eagle. All in favor, say aye!
Heckler,
What are employees at Auberge du Soleil and Piatti paid?
George Will: A writer who never misses a chance to show us how educated he is and how many big words he can use.
Anyone who thinks Religion should be kept out of Politics is out of touch with history and has a severe misunderstanding of what politics are. Let me submit: The reflection of peoples personal values in any democratic process. When we’re done fleeing Iraq watch how the Right rallies around what is truely important to us. Every law is based on moral code. It’s just about who gets to decide the moral direction of our country. Unfortunately enough people have been deceived by elitists to believe that there should be no moral code, only personal morality. That’s not freedom that’s anarchy.
I’ll tell you why the Dems won. They were outraged by Delay and radical-right friends’ wanton destruction of Republican and Democratic principles of governance. Here are some of the many destructive things that were done:
1. Delay’s operatives strong-armed lobbyists to give large amounts of money virtually exclusively to the Republican leadership, who then doled out the funds selectively, in order to buy Republican representatives’ loyalty.
At the same time, Delay’s operatives pressed incessantly for lobbying firms to hire only Republicans.
How could they do this? Very simply, the lobbyists were told that if they didn’t do these things, the Republican representatives would have difficulty meeting with them, and in considering their requests for special legislation. But if the lobbyists “got onboard” the representatives’ doors would be wide open, and the go-along lobbyists legislative-action requests would be given high priority. They called it “Pay to Play” in the Beltway. Delay was rumored to have a “black book” that listed lobbyists and their contributions. When confronted, he admitted keeping it on his desk, and when lobbyists came into his office, he opened the book right in front of them, and depending on the numbers he saw, he either smiled and asked, “What can I do to help you today?” or, “Legislation is hard work. If you’d increase your contributions to our work, it would really help.”
The Radical Right totally controlled the house by a strict majority-rule (which did not apply to the Senate) so that lobbyists wasted their time to visit with Dems, who had zero power to advance any legislation that Delay and his friends didn’t want.
2. Important bills were drafted in secret by the Radical Right. They were sent out to House members with only 24 hours or less time being given for them and their staff analysts to read and evaluate, even bills of several hundred pages length.
3. Floor debate was not allowed on these bills.
4. House-Senate reconciliation conference membership was limited on the House side to Republicans only. Major NEW CHANGES were made to bills that neither house of congress passed in its’ respective original bills, and the post-conference bills were shoved through with virtually no time allowed for the congressmen and staffs to evaluate.
5. Even Republicans who wanted to have time and opportunity to deliberate were told to shut up and get in line, i.e. play ball and get in line for lucrative lobbyist and PAC disbursements, or else watch the RR put up heavily-funded primary candidates in the next election whom the moderate Republicans could not muster the money to fend off.
This was NOT republican (small r) government. Republican government is the use of elected representatives for practicality purposes, who can operate more efficiently as a small body located in one place, to act upon the will of their constituents without using dispersed-across-country town-hall meetings and mass plebiscites.
This was crude but effective political-machine skulduggery. Delay was called “The Hammer” and “The Exterminator” (a play on words on his former occupation) by his colleagues. He was an old fashioned political boss of the Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed stripe. He enforced authoritarian “discipline” (actual term used). The budget, due to special legislation and earmarks, skyrocketed because the mantra was “this government is open for business; we’re here to open the vault-door to the public treasury on behalf of our friends.”
This is not the first time America has suffered a massive transfer of wealth from the public to private interests. It happened in the post-Civil War period as the transcontinental railroad builders made obscene amounts of money submitting grossly-inflated construction charges, and even this wasn’t enough, as they demanded, and got, gigantic land grants of public property that became far more valuable than the railroad’s construction and operation. By getting land they could afford to sell passage tickets to millions of settlers at money-losing cost, because they made the loss up–and far more–by selling the formerly-public land, and by concurrently running banks that gave settlers loans to buy farmland owned by the railroads, town plots to retail businessmen in the towns the railroads set up, construction loans, farm-equipment loans, et al.
(One of the fascinating things most people don’t realize today is that the railroad masterminds decided where the largest towns would be–and not be–by deciding where spurs would be built, and by giving some towns railroad stations, while denying stations to other towns. Where they were not given land-grants, which were “checkerboard”, they sent out phony “settlers” to grab federal homestead parcels, and then concocted fictitious sales of their shiftless lackeys’ “homesteads”. Then the capitalists sold these to real settlers, at way-jacked up prices. This land should have been available to farmer-settlers as “it’s free government land, but you have to develop it to keep it” parcels.
Anyway, the Radical Right Machiavellians came to power with a promise to shrink government spending and intrusion into Americans’ lives. They were lying through their teeth. As Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
That’s what this election has been about. Now we’ll just have to see if the Dems are willing to get together with moderate Repubs, and restore a decent amount of honesty and fair play, and focus on serving America’s interests.
Kos is just too damned big.And way too venomous.I like this format because we can actually kind of get to know each other woody.There, I like that. You’re woody to me from now on. Hell I’ll even ask your permission.May I call you woody?Anyway, I like to comment where there’s at least some regulars I can relate to.And I like the local and state issues that you’ll never get to chime in on at the Kos.I get info from MSM sources and comment on it here.It’s so cool to get actual feedback instead of just being comment #13,488.Woody, if you get George Willthen I want Jim Hightower.
During the New Deal era were bears on not spending money and keeping out of foreign entanglements. To that extent, Will is right.
It’s amusing double-talk, though, to suggest that this election was somehow an affirmation of conservatism, of any variety. Yes, some of the Dem candidates were not particularly liberal, but the whole enchilada the neocons having been trying to sell us–their very way of governing—was under relentless attack, even by people like Flattop Tester in Montana. A few knee-jerk issues aside, it actually looked like a Democratic Party campaign (I could hear the screams issuing from the DLC!).
And, as New Deal congressman Jerry Voorhis pointed out, even at the height of Dem power, perhaps one third of the House Dems were conservatives. This is not a new thing.
Keith,”There is no freedomwithout self-restraint.”also”We owe our entire existence to 10,000 years of good weather,and six inches of topsoil.”….Paul Harvey
You really have that much faith in personal restraint? A bit of advice, don’t let your children join chatrooms.
It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people, in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion….Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. — John Adams
I like the local boards to discuss local events, but the bigger boards really can drive home the truths.
Hey Keith, Morality and Religion, not the same thing. Our Constitution is based on freedom of thought, freedom of actions, and freedom of and from religion.
Heartlander is right, it’s not about the religious right, it’s far more about the corruption and fiscal policies.
Your gig is up, the folks have realized how dangerous the far right evangelical agenda is, and they’ve spoken loudly.
The world problem is essentially a religious problem, and behind all strife in every department of world thought today is to be found the religious element.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Using government to force others to live within one’s own religious principles is wrong.
There is danger from all men.The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty…….John Adams
Sounds like he wrote that one for the GOP, huh Keith?
Wrong again Mom.
1st ammendment: Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
As far as I know Congress hasn’t declared Christianity as the national religion, but I know of thousands of cases in which people’s religious freedom of expression are supressed. For example, some of your posts.
You’re on the wrong side of history.
“Flattop” Tester is going to hold his office for a long time. He’s a successful farmer. He’s not New Deal Democrat, but he’s a Fair Deal democrat (small d). Claire McCaskill is a smart, level-headed person. She’s also a former scientist, which shows that Missouri is ahead of Kansas in its thinking.
Does anyone realize how lame Kansas’s U.S. Senators are? Not because they are Republicans, but because they don’t have any 21st century ideas, and they haven’t spearheaded any significant legislation.
Steven – I figure 1) his father. The Cheney approach is why we are in the quagmire; daddy had warned against that. Bush’s only hope now is that daddy’s men can bail his sorry butt out of this mess.
Keith, what’s your point here?What is it you champion?
“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is…by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt”
“…all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,”
“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and the executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch”
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with his wrath?”
“The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
T.JeffersonT.JeffersonT.JeffersonT.JeffersonT.Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was not a modern day liberal.
“I know of thousands of cases in which people’s religious freedom of expression are supressed. For example, some of your posts.”
LOL!
“Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn’t you? ”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes
P.S. RE: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with his wrath?”
Jefferson never said that, and never would.
The only time anyone’s admitted they were a Christian before,was when they were busy telling me why they’re better than me.
….Randy K. Milholland
I must say, there is a lot of Christian bashing going on around here. I can appreciate that sometimes they bring it on themselves, but I think the bashing goes beyond that.
This is a waste of time. Read some history books. Bye.
Keith you’re right.You don’t have a point to argue do you?What is it?Christian=goodLiberal = not good????
A bit too simplistic.Bye-bye.
Woody, I haven’t bashed any christians.I’m just trying to figure out what Keith is trying to say.
I think he might have been arguing for the overturning of Marbury v. Madison, but I’m not sure. . .
Rage, it’s good he left then if we can’t figure out what he wants.
Woody,The only problem I have with evangelicals is that if you’re not evangelical too, they act like you’re not a real christian and your salvation is questionable.
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html
Rage: You might be surprised at what Jefferson said.
“Rage: You might be surprised at what Jefferson said. ”
No, not in the slightest. What’s your point?
“George Will: A writer who never misses a chance to show us how educated he is and how many big words he can use.” . . . and, Dennis, you would rather have him write down to single syllable words you can understand?
But maybe that’s why Rush is so successful; he talks to the uneducated so they can understand him. Which is probably the way he’s always talked.
As I said before, George is someone I don’t always agree with, but he writes better than just about all the other political pundits.
His comments on why Republicans lost is dead on. They totally forgot what conservative stood for and dove head first into the washington money pit. I repeat: if the democrats forget what got them here, they too will fall again. I hope both side have learned the real lesson behind all this. It’s government of the people, by the people and for the people. The democrats forgot that when they lost out, and the republicans forgot it during the lsat 10 years. It’s up to us to see they don’t forget again.
One of our greatest original states was dominated by Quakers. Not accepted as “true Christians”. The Anglican Church’s influence was the most powerful at the Constitutional Convention, but many Founding Fathers saw it to be the liberals side of the Catholic Church that accepted divorce, due to its founding by adulterer Henry VIII. Most of the southern states were led by Anglicans. The New England Puritan/ Congregationalists were Calvinists. Appalachian Presbyterians were too. Other than all being anti-Catholic Church, they didn’t see eye to eye. It wasn’t that they ardently disputed Catholic religious ideas–other than excluding a few Catholic Old Testament books, they accepted the vast majority of the Catholic Bible–they just didn’t want a theocracy. Many were well-educated. They realized things like so-called-celibate priests, with the CC’s history of popes and cardinals fathering illegitimate children in their hedonistic self-lust-satisfying ways, was an unsound dichotomy.
This being said, the Founding Fathers found it appropriate for different states/commonwealths to have their own policies. The First Amendment DID NOT prohibit states or local governments from enacting their own religiously motivated policies. The proposition of all government being separated from religion was NOT in our Founding Fathers’ vision. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, in which the Supreme Court outlawed Bible reading in local schools’ classes, the SC totallty overreached and exceeded its authority. In Rowe v. Wade, same thing.
In contrast, in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and in Miranda v. Arizona the SC ruling were sound. Brown, a consolidated case, involved in one instance, a black family whose father earned enough money to buy a house in a “nice” part of Topeka, and he paid a lot of taxes, qualifying his daughter to attend a neighborhood school. Another consolidated-case plaintiff was admitted, on merit, to an Oklahoma teachers college, but wasn’t allowed to sit in class.
In Miranda, rights clearly delineated to all American citizens, in the aftermath of the Civil War, were denied by local authorities.
Abortion and gay marriages are a state issue. If people feel constrained by state law, they are free to travel to states that have laws consistent with their personal views, or cities that ignore state laws, and nobody tries to interfere. Pot-smoking in California? That’s not Kansans’ concern, unless pot gets to Kansas, then the Kansans can decide whether or not to make pot-smoking against their own interests to such a degree that they stomp it out. Would-be pot smokers can then decide to move to California. Third-term abortions? Don’t want them here? Outlaw it, and if the Beltway Court tries to give you an order, say, “F U. Try to come here and enforce your ‘order’.”
Your interests aren’t the same as the coasts’. That was the original idea of Federalism: we have limited shared ideas and goals. We’ll promote these, and where we don’t have them, it is up to local people to decide. Tip O’Neill was called “a liberal”. His belief was, “All politics is local.”
You people are so stupid. You are all caught up in this ideal dream of American improvement via the Democrat party. Yet you all forget that all politicians are simply figureheads who will sell their ideals to the lobbyists with the deepest pockets. You think Democrats actually give a shit about the American people? You think that just because you get a Democrat in the White House, radical change is going to take place for the advancement of the common American? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was you.
We saw a radical change with Carter to Reagan, then from Bush 1 to Clinton, and then radical change again from Clinton to Bush…
SO yeah, why SHOULDN’T we expect radical change this time too?
By the way, Pelosi’s first order of business is to reel in the lobbyists..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900628.html
Who coined the phrase Separation of Church and State then Heartlander?
Look, do any of us believe the same exact ways from birth to death? No, our spirituality is ever-changing. You could look up quotes from me I’m sure where I have said something pro-Religion, although most of what I’ve said has been anti-religion. These are people who had seen very personally the angst religion could impose when combined with power.
The most important lessons the founding fathers gave us was NO mention of religion in the Constitution and the VERY first Amendment to it addressed the concern with freedoms of religion.
If you think for one minute that the founding fathers ever expected Christians to create laws based on individual religions (as in Christianity), you need look no further than the Consitution.
Peemom,
Yeah yeah yeah. I heard that tired old rhetoric you liberal proponents spew over and over again, and you still sound utterly ridiculous now as you did then! Of course you do not have the presence of mind to think about the hypocrisy of slave-owning white men writing that “ALL MEN ARE FREE AND EQUAL” way back in 1776. I’m sure that you liberals KNEW that your slave-owning omniscient Founding Fathers MEANT to extend that courtesy they took for granted to all people of color! It just took a little under 200 years to put the Bill of Rights in effect for “ALL MEN” huh? Please humour me with more of what you think the Founding Fathers meant, I am fascinated that liberals can read minds!
The Republican Creed
I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon.
If I can seek opportunity, not security,
I want to take the calculated risk to dream and
build, to fail and to succeed.
I refused to barter incentive for dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to
guaranteed security, the thrill of fulfillment
to the state of calm utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence,
nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master,
save my God.
It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and
unafraid. To think and act for myself, enjoy the
benefit of my creations; to face the whole world
boldly and say, “I am a free American.”
The Republican Oath
I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people.
I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person’s ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized.
I believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.
I believe that sound money policy should be our goal.
I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity as well.
I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.
I believe that Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
Finally, I believe that the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
The Republicans of today are not the same Republicans who composed the oath. Lobbyists can buy them, they are only figureheads. Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference in the faux representative democracy of 21st century America.
“Bush’s only hope now is that daddy’s men can bail his sorry butt out of this mess”…YET AGAIN.
Here’s the REAL Republican oath–
I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well by individuals
For instance no-bid government contracts to companies formerly run by the Vice President. Individuals can’t do that for themselves.
I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person’s ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized.
Except when you need to torture some swarthy dude with a beard . . .
I believe that Americans . . . should share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
Except for a duly elected President or Prime Minister we don’t like, for instance Salvatore Allende or Hugo Chavez. Then we get to kill them.
As usual, Digby sees the “conservatives” better than they see themselves. This is from a must-read post taking apart the whole “midterm election of ‘06 was a victory for conservatism” meme.
**********************************
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com
“George Bush may have been the guy who killed the movement, but it’s dead nonetheless and everyone saw the movement robots wildly cheering him on their television screens. Their old “conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed” just isn’t going to work this time no matter how much they prop up its decaying corpse and pretend it’s everybody’s favorite girl. The vast majority of the public knows very well that George W. Bush is the most conservative president in American History. That’s what they don’t like about him.”
“This being said, the Founding Fathers found it appropriate for different states/commonwealths to have their own policies. The First Amendment DID NOT prohibit states or local governments from enacting their own religiously motivated policies. The proposition of all government being separated from religion was NOT in our Founding Fathers’ vision. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, in which the Supreme Court outlawed Bible reading in local schools’ classes, the SC totallty overreached and exceeded its authority. In Rowe v. Wade, same thing.”
Your analysis, with all due respect heartlander, is oversimplistic. The reason why the First Amendment specified the federal government, and particularly Congress, is that the FF’s did not see local governments as a comparable threat to individual freedoms as the federal government. They were wrong, and history has proven how they were wrong. This error was addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which specified this:
“Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was not enforced for nearly a century after its passage is immaterial, but it also demonstrated the degree to which local governments could constrain the freedoms and federally guaranteed rights of its citizens (witness segregation). The limitations on the federal government with regards to what it can impose on its citizens also apply to the states, and that includes government establishment of religion. The reason why school districts can not require bible reading in their schools is the same reason why the federal government can not require bible reading in their schools. It’s an establishment of religion, which was seen, correctly, as a considerable threat to the freedom of individuals subject to governments. Having rules regarding required readings of the Bible, or prayers, immediately confers the status of “other” on those are not Christian or Christians who do not believe as the majority in a given state or community do.
Jesus, speaking of the end time, asked the cryptic question, “When the Son of Man comes will He find faith in the earth?”When He came the first time, He noted that it was a Gentile centurion of the hated Roman Legion that best exemplified faith. At another point he spoke of those seated with Abraham as coming from the east and the west — while those alleged to be Abraham’s children would be shut out.
God’s own people shut out?!? Impossible! Yet, it happened. The very people of the covenant — scribes and Pharisees, no less — would lose out to pagans who had expressed genuine faith.Dare we be so smug in our religiosity to be likewise blinded?
Will we follow down that broad, well-worn path of religious pride and miss the opportunity for the blessedness of seeing Jesus?
pm, we have to recognize that we have a strong Christian heritage. What’s the most-populous, economically richest and trend-setting state in America? California. If it were a nation, it would have the sixth-largest economy on the planet.
What are California’s largest cities?
Los Angeles–The AngelsSan Diego — Saint DiegoSan Francisco–Saint FrancisSan Jose–Saint JosephSacramento-Sacrament
Gee, when is the ACLU going to force these cities to CHANGE their really offensive names?
–Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (good. not anywhere close to happening as I see it, we have mosques, synagogs, unity and christian churches this is America and that’s how it should be)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (possibly my children would like to exercise there religion by praying at school – uh no sorry, seperation of church as state – guess i missed that)
Conservatism does not well serve a modern society.
It was fine when America was mostly an agrarian (farming) based nation. But America is not that sort of place anymore.
Too, conservatism has lately been corrupted to conserve wealth and power to those who have and can at the expense and exploitation of those who have not or can not.
I’d say the recent election is just the beginning.
Coservatism will have to go away again and re-invent itself.
Mr KIA, your children and others who so wish may pray at school; privately, without administration or faculty coercion upon others who don’t wish to join in. What is wrong with that?
Mr Kia?
I seem to remember a great deal of media coverage recently of an event called “see you at the pole.”
Kids at schools all over the country gathered BEFORE SCHOOL or AFTER SCHOOL HOURS at shool flag poles to join in prayer.
I saw no attempt to stop this. No government “storm troopers” rounded those kids up. I saw no ACLU or other groups attempt to stop these exercises of freedom of speech and religion.
See? Your kids can pray all they like at shool. I personally will fight for their right to do so so long as that prayer is not disruptive or coerced. You just don’t get to mandate MY kid praying.
ksagnostic, I would argue a bit with your 14th amendment analysis. When one reads the SCOTUS opinions from the ratification of the so called “Civil War Amendments” through Plessy v. Ferguson, there was a steady stream thereof recognizing and applying the 14th amendment to the freed slaves. The opinion in Plessy represented a departure from the growing body of consitutional jurisprudence, an aberration, so to speak, which continued until the Brown v. Board case, which may be argued picked up the thread so crudely and rudely interrupted in 1896.
I commend Vaughn’s analysis. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section I was enacted make it the law of the land that freed slaves (Thirteenth Amendment) were full American citizens.
Section 2’s purpose was to ensure that if former male slaves were disenfranchised, any state that did this would lose representation: the three fifths formula of Article I Section 2 Clause 3 of the original constitution was nullified, so that if whites excluded blacks from voting, that state’s actual male voting population, rather than its total male citizen population would determine its House and Elector representation numbers.
Section 3’s purpose was to disqualify from office anyone who, prior to the war, took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, but violated his oath by joining or supporting the insurrection. This restriction could be overturned by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress [as was ultimately done].
Section 4 indemnified the United States against war-debts incurred by the rebelling states, as well as property (slave) loss claims from former slave owners.
Amendment 15 prohibited the United States or any state from denying or abridging the right of a (male) person to vote, based on color, race or previous condition of servitude.
Each amendment also conferred upon Congress the power to enforce, by legislation, the provisions of the amendment.
Certainly we can find no basis either for a subsequent expansionary interpretation of the amendments, nor the amendments’ conferral upon the courts, the power to interpret the amendments in a manner inconsistent with their purpose at the time of their passage.
I started school before school prayer and Bible reading were outlawed by SCOTUS. I never heard a prayer. Never had a Bible reading. I don’t remember seeing a Kresh in school. There may have been a state law prohibiting these things in California. Perhaps if there was such a law, Californian Earl Warren thought the rest of the nation should be as enlightened.
But you can’t combine the First and Fourteenth Amendments to outlaw local public schools from imposing some religious practices, except by arguing that if freedom from religion occurs in some localities, then it is a national right. That’s akin to saying that the rights and privileges conferred through gay marriages performed in Massachusetts are binding on all other states. Or that if one state has abolished the death penalty, then freedom from execution is a constitutional right in all states.
The federal government gives tens of billions of dollars a year to Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist hospitals. It gives $200 million to Duke University, and nearly as much to Northwestern, two Methodist institutions, for research. The military pays chaplains of most mainstream Christian and Jewish denominations, and they hold religious services on federally-owned bases and ships. I can assure you that baptism performed by military-officer chaplains, a Christian sacrament, is performed in military hospitals. Bedside prayers are said by these federal employees. Last rites are given. Priests, ministers and rabbis lead religious-service burials at Arlington National Cemetary.
I suppose if the ACLU wanted to challenge these federally-authorized and taxpayer-funded practices, it could do so. I sincerely doubt it would get very far.
Vaughn: “ksagnostic, I would argue a bit with your 14th amendment analysis. When one reads the SCOTUS opinions from the ratification of the so called “Civil War Amendments” through Plessy v. Ferguson, there was a steady stream thereof recognizing and applying the 14th amendment to the freed slaves. The opinion in Plessy represented a departure from the growing body of consitutional jurisprudence, an aberration, so to speak, which continued until the Brown v. Board case, which may be argued picked up the thread so crudely and rudely interrupted in 1896.”
Plessy v. Ferguson reporesented a very powerful departure, and allowed for powerful demonstrations of why a 14th Amendment was necessary primarily in but by no means limited to the American south, even as it was not being complied with. I don’t really think we disagree that much.
heartlander:”pm, we have to recognize that we have a strong Christian heritage. What’s the most-populous, economically richest and trend-setting state in America? California. If it were a nation, it would have the sixth-largest economy on the planet.
What are California’s largest cities?
Los Angeles–The AngelsSan Diego — Saint DiegoSan Francisco–Saint FrancisSan Jose–Saint JosephSacramento-Sacrament
Gee, when is the ACLU going to force these cities to CHANGE their really offensive names?”
Not to mention Saint Louis, Saint Paul, San Antonio, or New Gottland outside of California. I would acknowledge there are common sense limits to pursuing the non-establishment doctrine, and I would include municipal names as protected by those limits. However, disallowing official (actually mandatory when one considers that schools had to comply) prayer and Bible readings in schools are common sense because they are more than the expressions of a historical religious heritage. They are oficial (and for government employees compulsory) endorsements of specific religious beliefs to the exclusion of others.
Mr. Kia: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (possibly my children would like to exercise there religion by praying at school – uh no sorry, seperation of church as state – guess i missed that)”
As others have pointed out, this is not the point. Children are free to pray in school, and prayers are only subjected to the same limitations that any other kind of speech or expression are subjected to (i.e., not disruptive). Religious clubs abound in schools. However, majorities in states, school districts or other governmental units do not have the “right” to have their prayers and their beliefs officially endorsed (i.e., established) by their legislatures and school boards. Try being in the “minority” that can “opt out” of such observances. Let students express their own beliefs without having their school board’s endorsement of lack of.
Geez, no time for more than a text bite. Oh well.
It seems we’re having an argument about the incorporation doctrine. The touchstone for me is whether something could reasonably be interpreted as a state endorsement or subsidy. Military chaplains are funded for obvious reasons (soldiers are generally not free to take leave for services); so long as everyone is free to their religion (or lack thereof, no problem).
Likewise, religious clubs are free to meet on school property, so long as the school doesn’t play favorites.
The Constitution of course was in the beginning only a restriction on the federal government. That’s why, in 1843 (if memory serves), declared that the federal Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. The decisions applying the Bill of Rights to the states did not start with Shemmmp; not even religious freedom cases did (take, e.g., W. Virginia v. Barnette, where the Supremes declares that a school could not force a Jehovah’s witness child to salute a ‘graven image’ (US flag).
Do you really want to go back? I sure don’t.
BTW, the notion that ACLU lawsuits are about preventing offense to people is an urban myth. It’s about government endorsement, and the power and influence that naturally flows from it. But if you’re cool with your kids studying, say, Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Bible,” then, by all means, chalk any objections up to PC gone wild.
Thanks for some interesting discourse.
Well said rage. When I grew up we had mandatory Protestant prayer and King James Bible reading in public school. Catholics were not considered “real Christians” and we all knew (sic) that the Jews killed Jesus. Like you, I do NOT want to go back to that.
heartlander: “I commend Vaughn’s analysis. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section I was enacted make it the law of the land that freed slaves (Thirteenth Amendment) were full American citizens.”
I think what Vaughn was specifically taking issue with was this statement I made:
“The fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was not enforced for nearly a century after its passage is immaterial, but it also demonstrated the degree to which local governments could constrain the freedoms and federally guaranteed rights of its citizens (witness segregation).”
Vaughn was arguing that the 14th Amendment WAS enforced, at least until Plessy V. Ferguson. I’m not sure I entirely agree with that, but his comments with regards to SCOTUS decisions prior to Plessy are well taken. From the viewpoint of the freed slaves, I would argue that the road to lack of enforcement may well date back at least to the failure of Congress to remove Andrew Johnson from office. Nonetheless, that is a different subject.
The immediate application and purpose of the amendment with regards to freed slaves still does not refute its overall purpose, particularly section one. I am aware of the original reason for the Fourteenth Amendment. The very basis of the Civil War was in part the determination of the southern states to preserve their “self determination”, and not to have the yankees who increasingly controlled the federal government dictate to them on a variety of matters, but far and away the biggest of them was slavery. This conflict did not end with the war, and in fact is still taking place, and in the old south there is STILL a widespread belief in a form of federalism that gives states a lot of self determination, but in this case the self determination includes how much those in control of the local government get to set the rules for those who are not in control. The flashpoint for a long time was race, now more often than not it is religion (none of this is to say that such viewpoints are limited to the American south, or that there are not other viewpoints in the south, but there is a cultural tradition of “let us set our rules for our people” in the old south.
heartlander: “Certainly we can find no basis either for a subsequent expansionary interpretation of the amendments, nor the amendments’ conferral upon the courts, the power to interpret the amendments in a manner inconsistent with their purpose at the time of their passage.”
I think you are quite mistaken in your narrow interpretation of purpose. The people who framed section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment were quite aware of the federalist arguments employed by the southern states prior to the Civil War, and as justification for secession. The idea of “we get to set the rules for our populace more than the federal government does” is often shorthanded as “state’s rights”. Even after the Amendment’s passage, this thinking has still been used to justify both segregation and religious accomodationist positions such as district sponsored/endorsed sectarian prayer in schools. The purpose of section 1 of the 14th Amendment was to identify once and for all that the strong interpretation of “state’s rights” could not be used not only as justification for excluding freed slaves from their rights as citizens, but not for disregarding the federal government’s authority to enforce the guarantees of the Bill of Rights for all of its citizens in all states. That includes, not at all incidentally, the First Amendment rights related to religion.
“But you can’t combine the First and Fourteenth Amendments to outlaw local public schools from imposing some religious practices, except by arguing that if freedom from religion occurs in some localities, then it is a national right.”
It’s not “freedom from religion”, it is freedom from the imposition of the prevailing religion. It is clear that you apparently think this is trivial, and perhaps that it is simply anti-religious atheists who are thin skinned about religious expressions. You are wrong. It is not trivial. It goes to the heart of what the First Amendment is about. There IS an amendment to the Constitution that specifically identifies that the federal government does not have the authority to impose religion or religious requirements on its citizens. Neither that right nor any other means very much if local governments are free to ignore it. That realization is what was recognized in section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
The endorsement of religious viewpoints by government bodies such as school districts divides the students and the staff into in and out groups, just as segregation did. For rural Texas high school football games, the official opening prayer was always going to be consistent with Christianity as seen by Southern Baptists, not other forms of Christian, and certainly not non-Christian forms of religion or belief. There would be “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet” or Hebrew prayer or a Buddhist meditation or especially a statement such as “I contend that we are both atheists, I simply believe in one less God than you do”. And those who refused or fail to participate in the endorsed religious ritural are in the out group. There have been documented instances of harrassment and worse for people who do not fit into the prevailing religious viewpoint as it is, much less when they are forced to publically identify themselves because they don’t participate in the official rituals of the historically or politically dominant religion of a town, school district, or state.
There were numerous errors in my previous post, but just to be clear this sentence should have been:
“There would NOT be “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet” or a Hebrew prayer or a Buddhist meditation or especially a statement such as “I contend that we are both atheists, I simply believe in one less God than you do”.
You’re dead-on, ksagnostic.
Those who crafted the First Amendment were, if anything, more concerned about religious establishments, since that was typically the means by which religious freedom was attacked (this is still true!).
Leaving aside heartlander’s archfederalist textualism, it seems odd to me that principles of religious freedom that are well-established in a federal context would be unworthy of respect in a state context–particularly when state constitutions usually have similar provisions.
I don’t think precedent or history is particularly on his side, but I’ll leave that argument to another day.
I also wonder why the “privileges and immunities” accorded African-Americans in the 14th amendment should somehow exclude the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment.