44 Comments »

Mike said:
The Republican Party is not a single party. It is a party of many ideas that come together as a coalition. This list, a good list, is too broad and not definitive enough to be practical.
I can pick out many legitimate reasons why many of these items may not work. For example, your first point must as well read “all atheists must become Democrats.” Worse, it should also read “all Asians must become Democrats.”
The post defines a type of conservative. There are many other types: fiscal conservatives, Liberterians, small government, and states-rights. Many conservative Christians (the moral majority) want to tell you how to run your life, even if their form of Christianity differs from others. In their view, there is no place for non-Christians, and in some cases for non-Protestants.
You have defined one type of conservative. All others must become Democrats? Some people would like that a lot!
# 26 February 2009 at 9:30 am

NC Viking (author) said:
I wasn’t really trying to define one type of conservative, instead I tried to lay out common conservative principles. It is broad and general to provide guidance, like a business does with goals and objectives. Many conservative ideas you mention fall in line with them. Fiscal conservativism under Governing Principle 3, smaller government would be a result of following many of the governing principles, states rights are addressed in Governing Principles 1 and 2. I may not have included everything, but it’s a start.
I assume you mean by including God in the ‘Life’ principle, or mentioning it in the equality principle, that it would prove noninclusive. Possibly. I suppose the term God could be removed for this reason. The conservative value of life is what is paramount. Belief in God is ultimately an individual choice.
Evangelical Christians have the right to try and influence people through ideas and/or the Church, but unjustly telling people what to do through government violates the Conservative ‘Liberty’ Principle. I guess these principles provide an opportunity to call out this kind of behavior as unconservative. I mentioned a few others, suppressing gay rights and the marriage amendment, torture, rendition, preemptive war, etc. I believe these are not conservative principles.
# 26 February 2009 at 10:19 am

Jaimin said:
Your examples of how right the Republican party is ignores many historical facts and presents a one-sided (some would say lop-sided) view of Republicanism.
1) The Civil Rights voting Act was passed by a Democratic president.
2) Afro Americans overwhelming support democratic causes because they understand the difference between Northern democrats and Southern democrats. Southern democrats did have a history of supporting segregation, but that doesn\’t make them a force in current political life.
3) The first Afro American Supreme Court justice was Thurgud Marshal, appointed by Lyndon Johnson, a democrat.
Historically, both parties have had a significant evolution in their views on race and rights. No one associates Republicans as the party of civil rights, most certainly not afro Americans and other minorities.
Your post will not bend history to your will — and certainly your notable omissions will raise eyebrows of concern.
# 26 February 2009 at 10:48 am

NC Viking (author) said:
The examples are facts given to show that Republicans are not a party of white men, as they are portrayed by Democrats and the media. This is a gross misrepresentation. I did not accuse the Democratic party of being this, nor does the media or Republicans for that matter. Jim Crow and segregation are ugly Democrat skeletons that rarely see the light, this is a fact Democrats must live with. Republicans were against this.
I praise Johnson for signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but let’s not forget its foundation was on the Civil Rights Act of 1875 under the Republican Grant, 1957 Civil Rights Act and 1960 Civil Rights Act under the Republican Eisenhower.
And you have made my point that “No one associates Republicans as the party of civil rights, most certainly not afro Americans and other minorities.” Why not? Republicans have a long, proud history of support of civil rights. They also overwhelmingly supported its legislation in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Hell, the party was formed to stop the expansion of slavery, for Pete’s sake! The only revisionist history going on here is that of the media and Democrats.
# 26 February 2009 at 11:28 am

Mike said:
The Republican Party of 1857 isn’t the RP of 2008 – not even close. It is the height of delusion to even suggest this. Nor by the way are the Democrats of 1803 (Jefferson, Jackson) the party of Wilson.
If you want past history, the Republicans are the party of Hoover and Bush – symbols that will forever last in history as economic folly.
In modern times, Democrat roots in race issue starts with 1948 when Truman opened up jobs and opportunity by declaring the military non-segregated. The democrats split, reminding everyone that there are two parts to democrats, the party of Kennedy and Johnson, and the party of Wallace, et al.
Republicans stand for the rights of the rich and powerful. Their best friends are the super rich. You can and will take offense at this but your offense will do nothing to stop history or perceptions.
Republicans can blame the media (I say they whine about it), but their issues with perception have nothing to do with people’s perceptions. We judge you by your actions and your friends.
Republicans have accomplished precious little other than to drive budget deficits sky high and ask future generations to pay for them — just to get elected on a lowering your taxes platform. It was irresponsible. If you want to reform the party, start with fixing that problem.
I am all for Republicans being the party of God and Christians. The smaller and smaller pie that they can make for themselves the better.
# 26 February 2009 at 12:49 pm

Mike said:
Correction. My statement above Republicans can blame the media (I say they whine about it), but their issues with perception have nothing to do with people’s perceptions. We judge you by your actions and your friends.
should have read
Republicans can blame the media (I say they whine about it), but their issues with perception have nothing to do with it isn’t the media the shapes people’s perceptions. We judge you by your actions and your friends.
# 26 February 2009 at 1:21 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
I chronicled the history of the Republican Party as it relates to race and civil rights in bullet points. From beginning to modern times, always a supporter. These are facts, along with the many minority participants and leaders in the party now. Ranting about deficits, taxes, Christians, Bush or the rich do not change these facts.
# 26 February 2009 at 1:22 pm

Mike said:
It’s your blog. Take feedback from posters as advise or as attacks, however you want to process them. This is hardly a rant about Bush or anything else.
I accept your list of points and in that list you pointed out that 80% of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. There is no need to be accurate and just lump all democrats together, but just be aware that any reasonable observer of American politics would observe that there is more to democrats than a single dimension across history. There just happen to be northern and southern democrats and the philosophy of northern ones are the democrats of today.
You point out the long and favorable history of Republicans as the party of inclusion, and I’ll credit that it has good credentials, but again any reasonable casual observer of American politics would point out that the RP of 1857 is hardly the same party today.
Finally, I point out that however favorable your list of points make it seem, most people do not see it that way. You can ignore, even call it ranting, but you cannot change the real issues facing the now tarnished Republican party. I posted what and why above and I’ll skip repeating them, but look at what you call rant above as a reminder.
Republicans are not conservatives and conservatives are not Republicans, and conceptually one could make a party that meets your outlines above. It would have just some of the people in Republican party today – the keyword being some. I’ll leave it at that as food for thought.
And food for thought should be basis for a dialog, not arguing about rant and media.
# 26 February 2009 at 2:53 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
I don’t disagree with the failings of the GOP lately. This is the point of the post, that many of these things can be remedied by following Conservative Principles. I believe the GOP has also done a poor job of promoting their favorable credentials to minorities and have allowed Democrats and the media to wrongly define them. Michael Steele wants to give the party a ‘hip hop’ makeover to remedy this. That is not necessary. Clearly communicating the party’s history, philosophy and current inclusion of minorities is all that is needed.
# 26 February 2009 at 3:21 pm

Mike said:
There’s plenty to applaud in the principles. I have noted though that they are too general, too broad, or contain built in contradictions.
For example, Immigration or Amnesty-Shamnesty. This issue is not about immigration but about the rule of law.
As a business, I should have the right to hire who I need to run my business. If I need a genius from Germany or India, then I should have the right to hire them. This is principle #4, #10, or even #12. If that what it takes for me to compete against another business, so be it. That is my principle. The gov’t should not interfere.
That said, someone may need low wage workers. They work for less and consequently a business can deliver items like food at a much lower cost. Who are we to interfere?
Or, while your principles don’t describe the rights of families, I don’t believe in arresting a father or a mother and splitting families. It violates my view of principle #12. Families should stay together.
One answer is to deny families a basic right. It’s the rule of law no matter how it tramples on a family. Another answer is to provide them with a path to citizenship, except your principles require “No Shamnesty” even if the children are innocent, even if they are American citizens, even if the family believes and prays to God, even if their only crime is a better life.
My God is the loving God or forgiveness, of sanctity, of taking in the less fortunate, of giving a hand up, not out of their home.
I may post about why your view of Church and State, as stated has its own problems.
# 26 February 2009 at 4:35 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
There are immigration laws in place. Many broke those laws in varying degrees in order to live here or remain here. Enforcement of those laws has been very inconsistent. When laws are inconsistently enforced to this degree they become meaningless, hence the problem we have now with illegal immigrants. Some equitable solution must be reached regarding illegal immigrants already here because of this fact. This does not sit well with immigrants who have played by the rules, which is the reason for the uproar. After settling this issue, laws must be enforced consistently. If the laws are not equitable, people should lobby to have them changed but not excuse violation of them. This is what I meant by it being an issue of the ‘rule of law’ and not about hating on immigrants, which some portray it as.
# 26 February 2009 at 5:18 pm

Mike said:
I am glad to see your position on immigration to have moved from a no amnesty position to doing something constructive, maybe like a path to citizenship.
That solution is not one that I would advocate. In my view, they would remain citizens of their country, they would just be free to look for work.
A point of my post on immigration is that your conservative principles do not necessarily champion free market ideas. Mine would.
My conservative principles would be different than yours. In them I would allow free markets that make sense – no borders, no restrictions. My principles puts families ahead of anything else, wherever they live.
It is a your principles v. mine.
To enforce immigration laws as they are in place now costs money. We spend close to $12B now (some say much more) and we catch very few. How much do we want to spend? $200 Billion? $500 Billion?
As an example of the vacuous logic of some Republicans, how much would Jindal spend on immigration enforcement in Louisiana? Probably 0.
A better program is get-a-job. You have a job, stay here. You don’t, you must live elsewhere, but you are free to look for a job. Plus, these workers would pay taxes. Money would flow into State and Federal coffers instead of out.
I am sure it’s very controversial, but it is fair, based on free market and doesn’t bankrupt the country on enforcement.
# 26 February 2009 at 6:21 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
As long as it doesn’t create an exploited surf class by violating another’s liberty to protect or enhance our own, or our property. Organized labor would skewer anyone who was in favor of this idea, though.
Also, I think we may be in agreement that immigration law and the INS are in need of serious reform. Back in the days of Ellis Island, it took very little time or red tape to become an American citizen. Eight months at the worst if you came here with a contagious disease. This was very welcoming to immigrants. Today, it is a nightmare of bureaucracy. I lived in Miami for many years and saw it up close. A woman who works for me spent eight years, a small fortune and only after the kindness of a wealthy man’s attorney was she able to get her children here from Mexico. Another friend turned somersaults and used an expensive attorney to become a citizen and it still took her seven years. Yet, if you are Cuban, just make it to American soil. I’ve been to the INS to get fingerprinted for some long-term international travel requiring a visa, it makes the DMV look like the drive thru.
Correcting this should be a three-pronged approach. Compassion, reform and enforcement. Immigrant hate-mongering on both sides is not constructive.
# 27 February 2009 at 2:57 am

Mike said:
I won’t prod the Principles forever, but I want to provide readers with a completely different analysis of the last 25 years or so – to the core of what is Republican and what is Democrat. It did not go unnoticed that this post and blog is anti-Democrat. It is not just true to conservative principles.
We are wrong to think of Republicans as beacons of conservatism; and we are wrong to think of Democrats as beacons of left thinking. The picture is much more fluid and complex.
A few points,
- The most religious of all presidents in the modern era (that defined as after WWII) was Jimmy Carter, born again, southerner. He defined foreign policy as rights-based, certainly one of the principles above.
- There is a ying and yang between Rs and Ds (Republicans and Democrats) over how much regulation is good for the economy. Rs favor less. Both times Rs were in power and lowered regulations they led to disasters in the economy. Reagan had the S+L crisis, Bush had the collapse of 2008.
- I am no more of an expert on regulation than you are, but I would say that we’ve pretty much proven that a 1990’s level of regulation is good for the economy. I’d say let’s return to this so we can have a level playing field, one of the principles you have articulated.
- The 90s were pretty good times, as were the late 80s, and part of the 00’s so I would say that Rs and Ds don’t have a better formula on the economy. I’d say Rs and Ds are pretty much alike.
- The 70s were extremely turbulent economic times: oil shock, stocks flat, housing at a standstill, inflation roaring out of control. This all led to 16% Fed Rate, which defeated Carter. You can blame Carter (particularly if you are an R), or you can blame Nixon price controls (if you are an economist and knwo what you are talking about).
- We went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Armed Forces that were built by Bill Clinton, a democrat. Rs tend to state they are for a strong national defense, but I’d say neither Rs or Ds fools around with the projection and deployment power of the military.
- Both Rs and Ds have kept social programs largely intact, fixing the margins more than the core. If you want to get people off of welfare more money should be poured into education. No child left behind [NCLB] (Ted Kennedy, George Bush) and now Obama’s plans all address these points. It’s the characters of the President, not whether they are an R or a D.
- One could say Obama is unproven, but 8 yrs ago one could say Bush NCLB was unproven. Let’s just give them benefit of the doubt.
- The largest increase entrepreneurial activity as a result of tax policy changes was under Bill Clinton.
- There are differences between Rs and Ds. Rs make a point that they lowered taxes for the top tier. Not so fast. The reality is that the published rates (70% for rich) was for anything not invested. The tax policy had been enacted years and years ago to avoid large bonuses and induce investment. Eisenhower and Nixon had no problem with it. RR staked it as a way to drive (probably needed) tax reform, but the 70% rate is an inside joke. Rich pay more under 36% now than they did under 70% because of AMT.
- Many Rs take an anti abortion stance, either out to get votes or out of personal conviction. Many Ds are usually woman’s-right advocates, out of the same reasons, either out to get votes or out of personal conviction. There are Rs who vote in favor of women’s-rights and there are Ds who are pro life.
- I don’t see Rs as a force of conservative thinking.
- I doubt very much that Rs will win elections if they became more conservative.
# 27 February 2009 at 5:38 am

Mike said:
This blog is long on anti-democrat and short on true conservative principles. It is heavy on how Bush will be rehabilitated (all because he is still bobbing around the bottom 5% of all presidents). It make me seriously wonder whether you are more pro-Republican party than a true conservative.
I say this because almost all of your posts are the doom and gloom of how America is sliding sideways under Obama instead of proposing conservative solutions.
Ideologies are great for providing a basis for argument but they are a terrible replacement for intelligent decision making.
Ideologies are an overly simplified way of organizing and characterizing human activity, usually with an end goal in mind. They try to force reality into a framework. They require everything to fit into one of its principles.
Principles 1 and 2 are not exclusive to conservatives. They are the law of the land. The decider of what is a state right and what is a federal right is the purview of the Supreme Court. Might as well have stated that people need air and water (hopefully clean) – again not a principle you can own.
There is an organization in America that unapologetically defends the US Constitution. It is called the ACLU. Of course, almost the entire conservative movement finds that organization anathema to its beliefs, as well as many decisions over the years. It’s the constitution, love it or leave it.
There are two reasons you consider yourself a conservative. I am sure you feel its the best course for America, but I would make the observation that it is (a) your wish for lower personal taxes to feed a smaller government, and (b) you were brought up in an area that is predominantly conservative (social setting).
It is no secret that people who grow up in NYC have a different world view than NC. Your principles may be right for you, right for America, better and stronger, but they are born out of a social setting.
They also happen to reflect an America before 1933, maybe before the 16th Amendment (1913). That was before FCC, SEC, before Homeland Security, … Even if you took all of the social programs out of the Federal budget: all welfare, all medical research, all waterway cleaning, etc.., you will only be removing less than $50B (or less!) from the budget. I am not sure what parts of the Federal gov’t you’d like to make smaller, or even what parts we reasonably could.
I am sure you will praise Obama’s recently declared war on lobbyists.
You and I share the out of control budget of both State and Federal governments. You and I can find common ground in that area.
Principles is how Bush drove America to economic doom and principles will not get us out. Principles are not reality. Real solutions that solves specific problems is what will make America more efficient.
# 1 March 2009 at 8:39 am

NC Viking (author) said:
The principles are not written to declare ownership by the Conservative cause nor are they mutually exclusive to Conservatism. They are an attempt to provide an idea of guidance to a fragmented party with an inconsistent message. Also if political parties weren’t based on some sort of ideology then why have them?
Conservatives have an issue with the ACLU because it has been polluted with politics and is inconsistent and selective with whom it defends.
I was brought up in the upper Midwest, son of a Minnesota liberal and I now live in North Carolina (hence NCViking). I have also lived all over the country and have a relatively broad perspective.
Having principles are not a bad thing and in many places, politicians should be praised for sticking to them. FDR stuck to his principles in the face of public aversion to entering WWII by doing everything within his power to support the allies prior to Pearl Harbor. Bush drew an ideological line on embryonic stem cell research saying government funds should not be used because it was too slippery of a slope. He was right and because of this science found other ways without destroying embryos.
This blog reflects the opinions of the (conservative) authors in serious and tongue-in-cheek ways. Nothing more, nothing less. I am glad you read it and opine here in the comment sections. I think the thoughtful debate you provide is constructive and fun, though we may not always agree.
# 1 March 2009 at 1:59 pm

Mike said:
I read your response. When you say ‘not mutually exclusive’ and I say ‘not exclusive’ we are both saying the same thing. Why have a principle everyone has to and wants to agree with?
Also consistent between us is that you say ‘parties need an ideology’ while I said ‘Ideologies are great for providing a basis for argument.’ Fine, use it to win elections.
But I think you clearly mean more than just a point of debate. I think you mean that government should be run using them. To which I say, ideologies are frameworks that distort reality and that “they are a terrible replacement for intelligent decision making.” And I stick by that thought.
Ideology does not trump intelligence and intelligent decision making.
Roosevelt is a point that more than endorses my point of view. He didn’t need an ideological framework to defend his action on helping the allies. All he needed was to understand what was at stake.
It is to my point because of the ridiculous position we would be in if Roosevelt’s ideology was to draw a circle around the US and not help. He acted more out of pragmatism than out of an ideology of international interference.
As for Bush, he had did have an ideological point of view that drove his decision, no doubt. Just because someone’s ideology resulted in a decision that you liked doesn’t validate the idea that ideology trumps intelligence. He also made lots of dumb moves based on a conservative ideology not dissimilar from the one you posted.
Best
# 1 March 2009 at 4:13 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
The whole American experiment is based upon ideology. That being said, ideology should not trump intelligence, and definitely not replace rationality, common sense, and pragmatism.
# 2 March 2009 at 6:17 am

Mike said:
I would say that the American experiment is the outcome of a level playing field set down by the Founding Fathers over 200 years ago wherein competing ideologies can vie for position and power.
As I posted a few days ago (see Carter is the most religious President), the differences in outcome between the various parties and ideologies are rather trivial. That accounts for the shift back and forth between parties.
The Republicans have held power in Washington for 20 of the last 30 years. For approx 15 of those they controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches. Yet looking back they have a very small legacy of accomplishment.
My conclusion is that the Republican party uses conservatism as a debate point, but they have little interest in implementing conservative ideas. It is a case of making less waves to stay in power.
That is one reason I doubt that your principles – ideas which I am sure you hold dear in your heart – will remake the Republican party. They just want to hold hands with CPAC, mock single moms and the ACLU, claim to be pro military, and hope to get back to power.
That’s just one reason I would never vote Republican. I could go on about other reasons.
# 2 March 2009 at 4:54 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
Here is an interesting link to show how The Constitution is a document of our American Ideology.
There are shared principles between the parties but those trivial differences is what makes a politician a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian for that matter. Those differences also provide us with a choice that more closely fits our individual ideological views. The Republican Party has been unclear on this lately, which has likely caused the recent turmoil in the party.
An example of how ideology should not trump intelligence. I may historically vote Republican because of their tend towards conservative ideology, but when I lived in Florida I sure wasn’t dumb enough to vote for the reelection of Jeb Bush in 2002. Unfortunately, not everyone felt the same way.
# 3 March 2009 at 9:34 am

Mike said:
I read the link. It says the Constitution is no longer followed. It says that the Feds has usurped the powers of the states.
The article is wrong. I’ll throw out a few examples of why this is so. The constitutional guarantee of the separation of power between the states and federal government is very much alive and intact, unless you happen to think that the Supreme Court is irrelevant.
There is a national interest to certain laws being uniform. Most would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. Take OSHA, EPA, or Education as examples (all favorite conservative targets).
Imagine two states, one who works their employees to an early death and another that respects their welfare. States could bankrupt each other by becoming small third world countries (which is the reason textiles went from New England to the South, then to South America and now to Bangladesh).
In that scenario, the Federal government needs no justification but to set standards. This includes all water, air, minimum wage, working standards, insurance transportability, and much much more.
Education falls under two categories well within the Federal government. The Federal government has a national interest in promoting a basic level of education. It has to be able to meet the needs of the nation, and it has to compete internationally. States have the right to educate above this level.
The Federal gov is not required to pay for any federal mandates. This is another ridiculous idea raised often by one group or another, mostly conservatives. The FG needs only to set minimum standards.
In practice, FG provides incentives. For example, it says states that adopt specific teaching such as science, or math, or computers in the class room, or reduce violence, will receive some funding (enough usually to hire a few teachers per district). States do fall all over themselves to comply and get the money. This activity does not cross the line of the Fed gov over extending their powers. It is their power.
While the FG could mandate teaching of sex education and evolution – controversial subjects – it usually does not. It does not, but could, dictate books, subjects, topics, and presentations. It doesn’t because it doesn’t have a subversive agenda.
America is not one ideology of federal power. It is a set of rules set 230+ years ago that creates a level playing field for governing and the rights of the people to elect and settle their debts.
# 3 March 2009 at 4:22 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
This is not exactly what the article is saying. The author argues that The Constitution is not just a document but an ideology that determines what we permit each other to do, as well as what we permit government to do in general. The people have granted the federal government specific powers far beyond the reach of what is mentioned in The Constitution and it is readily accepted and not deemed unconstitutional just because it doesn’t appear there, like much of the things you mention above. The Constitution couldn’t possibly cover every issue throughout American history but it does provide a legal framework and an ideological line that must not be crossed.
I think you may have gotten caught up in the authors overtly political slant and dogma, not the idea of The Constitution being an ideological document.
# 3 March 2009 at 6:10 pm

Mike said:
I read the article. I discounted his political bent and was focused on the part “Those innumerable government actions that are at odds with the Constitutional document as well as with the principles of a free society are in fact constitutional.”
I disagreed with the article’s premise when I read it the first time, for the reasons I stated.
I am not sure what purpose it serves to declare America’s way of life an ideology, or why it matters to you. In the context of the thread on these pages, I think that trying to make the American experience an ideology would justify an ideological conservative counterpoint.
You can have your point of view, and make it an ideological, partisan, overtly political, and unapologetically so regardless of the conclusions about the American experience.
What is more interesting, hat is if we are exploring issues with the principles, is why you need to post “States created the federal government, not the other way around.”
What point of interstate commerce would you take away from the Federal Government? What programs would you ask your State not accepting Federal incentives, and why that principle would help anyone? And what argument you provide as an example of Federal encroachment?
# 3 March 2009 at 6:55 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
An example for the principle ‘States created the federal government, not the other way around’:
Using the electoral college for electing a POTUS not a direct democracy (popular vote), which many Democrats screamed for after Al won the popular vote.
# 3 March 2009 at 7:40 pm

Mike said:
Mixed in that previous comment is a bit of anti-democrat feeling. The electoral college is just such a side issue (and 8 years old at that!). Does it merit an entire line in the principles?
Conservatives suffer much more from the electoral college math than they gain.
Suggestions to eliminate the electoral college has been under discussion for probably 200 years. It isn’t just Democrats. Republicans would have cried foul if McCain had won the popular but lost the electoral. It is about the notion that the popular vote should count.
There have been changes to the electoral college in non-controversial years. Maine adopted a popular vote distribution for two of its four electors in 1972, Nebraska has a popular elector system adopted in 1992.
Are there better examples of States make the Fed point? Maybe one without an opportunity to vent about the other party.
# 4 March 2009 at 4:08 am

NC Viking (author) said:
Bottom line: the principle is a reminder to always be wary of the Federal Government getting too big and powerful. Ironically, Thomas Jefferson warned of it:

“A single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry.”
James Madison tempered Jefferson’s fear by stating:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
# 4 March 2009 at 4:44 am

Mike said:
Huh?
Your point is we must be vigilant. Of what? Where is the fire? Where is the smoke? Where is the issue? Some democrat didn’t like losing the popular vote is the issue?
In conservative circles everyone nods when the power of the Fed is raised as an issue, but this the classic “Emperor with no clothes” issue. It sounds like something important, but as you have posted here there is no issue here that you can identify.
Find a concrete issue.
# 4 March 2009 at 5:47 am

NC Viking (author) said:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa515.pdf
# 4 March 2009 at 7:03 am

Mike said:
I read the link, all 68 pages. The study underscores my position in many ways. I am surprised that you would use it in this context. It is both old news and misleading on several points.
We all share the same goal: cheaper, faster, better, local control, efficient, and without fraud.
The premise of the report, from the non-independent Cato Institute, is that several Federal functions are: unconstitutional, inefficient, and fraud laden. We’ll get to the constitutionality of the issues – a matter which was settled 70+ years ago – further down in this post.
As far as cost, efficiency and transparency go, the study is wrong on these conclusions – which can be understood as follows:
- whether the states handle a program, or the program is handled by the FG costs the same. The costs: people, supplies, systems costs the same regardless of who does the job. Each state would pay a smaller share because it handles a smaller workload, but taken as a whole, the costs of all of the states would add up to the FG costs.
- separated to the states, costs and efficiency would rise. Systems would be not-integrated, data could not be shared, and there would not be any efficiencies of scale.
- the study claims the FG could save 10% – 15% of the budget, or $200B – $300B, but that would be offset by a rise in state taxes.
- the answer to fraud is auditing. These programs may suffer from a lack of auditors. Moving to the states virtually guarantees even less auditing capacity. Moving the program wouldn’t improve transparency.
- the study is faulty on several conclusions it claims. For example, it states that the States can do a better job of education and that the FG should stay out. Umm, no. Kids are taught by local teachers. Teachers won’t get smarter faster by removing Federal money. They may get lad off, but not smarter.
- States already have the power to hire better teachers and raise the education level of their own schools. They could even refuse Fed money if they thought that was the problem. Surely you would agree that this is a totally unsubstantiated claim that the study makes. Shame on the Cato Institute for being irresponsible.
- The observes that regulations placed by the Federal programs are costly to American business. Surely the Cato Institute doesn’t believe regulations are going away just because they move to the States.
- In fact, most Republicans argue, in some ways correctly, that uniform regulations by the Fed gov’t REDUCES compliance costs. Think of the costs if NY had different standards than CA, and different still than NJ and FL. Who could build a product then?
So the Cato report is wrong or misleading on so many points. Costs can come down when a function is eliminated or made more efficient, not when it is moved around.
It is also highly misleading in other ways. The Cato Institute specifically states that they want or plan NO REDUCTION in your federal taxes. In other words, your taxes would state the same. The states would now raise taxes to provide you these services.
Finally to the Constitutional matter. The Federal government can regulate matters of interstate commerce. These programs fall into one of two categories, either they are matters of interstate commerce, or they are incentives to states t perform a function, such as (a) clean harbor, (b) build hiway, (c) teach subject, whatever.
Whether you think the definition meets the standard or not is subjective. It will always be the definition of the Supreme Court, and it settled the matter 70+ years ago.
The study did not provide an argument that they were not Constitutional. It only said they were on the basis of marginal arguments. Well then, why didn’t they back up their position?
And because they didn’t, plus all of the other misleading arguments, I find the whole article suspect. The article is not-very-convincing.
So where is the great unconstitutional encroachment?
# 4 March 2009 at 9:43 am

NC Viking (author) said:
The conservative principle is is a reminder to always be wary of the Federal Government getting too big and powerful. The Cato Institute is a respected, non-partisan, not-for-profit conservative think tank who wrote a policy analysis about the size and overreach of the Federal Government. I would say this qualifies as a Conservative Governing Principle.
Are you arguing about whether this belongs as a Conservative Principle, or arguing the merits of Conservatism?
# 4 March 2009 at 12:13 pm

Mike said:
Either you agree with my observations of the Cato report, or you don’t. It does not matter whether the Cato Institute is non-partisan.
The word Unconstitutional has been thrown about, here and by conservatives.
The argument put forth in defense of the principles is that the Executive has expanded into areas constitutionally reserved for States. The principles has stated that it wants to go back to states doing that work.
I ask whether this is a false issue, whether it is more of a rallying cry than a real issue. As a false issue, without legs, what purpose does principles to a false issue serve?
# 4 March 2009 at 1:53 pm

NC Viking (author) said:
You called it the ‘non-independent Cato Institute’, I was clarifying.
There is a divide on what reach the Federal Government was granted by the Tenth Amendment and it’s relation to States. Conservatives and conservative groups, like the CATO Institute, tend to believe the FG is too big and overreaching and they made many well researched and referenced arguments of this in the policy analysis. You have dismissed them.
So what are the implied powers additionally granted to the Federal Government? I wrote in one of my comments “The people have granted the federal government specific powers far beyond the reach of what is mentioned in The Constitution and it is readily accepted and not deemed unconstitutional just because it doesn’t appear there. The Constitution couldn’t possibly cover every issue throughout American history but it does provide a legal framework and an ideological line that must not be crossed.” The debate of the size, reach and enumerated powers of the Federal Government has been a contentious ebb and flow since the Constitution was written. Conservatives tend to believe too much, Liberals not enough. Debate on individual instances of proper or improper FG reach, from the Department of Education to the right to privacy can be a good topic for another comment string, or maybe a post.
Do you have your own blog? If not, have you considered it? I would definitely read your analysis on events and political happenings and would gladly add it to the political blog roll under Liberal or Center Links, whichever one fits best. Let me know.
# 5 March 2009 at 7:09 am

Mike said:
I don’t understand how your response applies to my analysis of the Cato institute report, or how a principle of states rights would work in current times. I specifically don’t understand what specific item is unconstitutional.
By what yard stick do you think that the FG is too big? You have no way of measuring whether the FG is more efficient at 20% less or 20% more employment. Maybe it is most efficient if it had more auditors.
It would be more efficient if it had competition. I would be for companies bidding to do efficient work with the FG measuring effectiveness.
I am not your type of conservative, but I am neither liberal nor conservative. Left and right are from a time when there was communism. These are outdated concepts, nor more that we today would be Royalists v Republicans (in the old sense).
# 6 March 2009 at 7:53 am

Trackbacks

Celebrities » Blog Archive » Rising Star | Radio Vice Online

Celebrities » Blog Archive » Ron Paul: “Republicans have No Credibility” « Ragingtantrum.Com

13 Year Old Defines Conservatism at CPAC | The Great Illuminator

Celebrities » Blog Archive » Jindal Implodes

Celebrities » Blog Archive » David Barillari PèRe » Blog Archive » So…Who is the De Facto Head …

Celebrities » Blog Archive » Dan Cody - “Left on the Lake” » the Republican Dilemma: Infuriate …

GOP and Dems United in Pork! | The Great Illuminator

Shelby Steele on Conservatism, Minorities and the GOP | The Great Illuminator

Levin: Conservatives Need to Take Over Republican Party | The Great Illuminator

AFP Hosts Fred Barnes of Fox News in Libertyville | The Great Illuminator

Conservative Mark Levin Blasts Newt Gingrich as a “Phony” and “Has-Been” | The Great Illuminator

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website (optional)

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Our Growing Debt

Countdown Timer

• Election Day 2012:
  in 32 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 56 minutes, 13 seconds

Latest Illuminations

• Economic Crisis of Confidence
• If Socialized Healthcare Is So Great…
• Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech
• State of the Union Déjà vu?
• Purple Predestination
• Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!)

Latest Headlines

• S. Korea's parliament approves dispatch of troops to Haiti+
• S. Korea's parliament approves dispatch of troops to Haiti+
• Key 10-year JGB yield edges down in morning on stock losses+
• LEAD: Tokyo stocks fall on continued Europe risk woes, strong yen+
• Chinese dissident in China imprisoned for Tiananmen articles+
• Convera Corporation Files Certificate of Dissolution, Trading of Common Stock to Cease After February 8, 2010 Payment Date Set

HotAir.com - Latest Blog Entries

• Newest target of tea partiers: Er, Ron Paul
• Amazing: At 3 a.m., “Red Eye” beating CNN primetime in key demo
• Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of passing ObamaCare in House
• Scarborough: Did Chris Wallace roll his eyes at Palin?
• House GOP to Obama: We’ll meet with you about ObamaCare — if you agree to start over
• Gallup: Obama approval hits new lows on economy, health care, deficit

MichelleMalkin.com - Latest Blog Entries

• John Murtha dead at 77
• About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad
• Attention, NYC: White House still stuck on stupid
• Obama’s Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no
• Is the fix in? NY guv resignation rumors swirl
• Colorado Springs Derangement Syndrome

Hugh Hewitt - Latest Blog Entries

• Hugh Hewitt: Allen West and Alex Berenson
• Hugh Hewitt: Memo To Leaders Boehner and McConnell
• Hugh Hewitt: "Memo to Arianna: Stop Being Silly" and IBizReporting.com
• Hugh Hewitt: Why the MSM Don't Understand Palin, Beck, Limbaugh Etc
• Hugh Hewitt: "Emirs of Kleptocristan"
• Hugh Hewitt: A Wonderful Discovery

Charles Krauthammer - Latest Articles

• The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda
• The Real Detainee Scandal
• The Meaning of Brown
• The Fall of Obama
• The Gitmo Obsession
• Hollow Words on Terrorism

TownHall.com - Latest Blog Entries

• Meredith Jessup: GOP Walking Health Care Tight Rope
• Greg Hengler: Sanchez: Palin & Tea Party Push "Anti-Intellectualism"
• Kevin Glass: Captain America Takes on the Tea Parties
• Michael Medved: The Trouble With Government Jobs
• Carol Platt Liebau: What's Planned Parenthood's Real Agenda?
• Meredith Jessup: RIP: Rep. John Murtha Dies at 77

Subscribe to Posts

Email:

Categories

Select Category Abortion  (4) Afghanistan  (3) Africa  (1) Airlines  (7) Bill Clinton  (5) Budget  (10) Canada  (3) Card Check  (1) Children  (3) China  (3) Climate Change  (56) Constitution  (2) Crime  (6) Democrats  (61) Dick Cheney  (2) Economy/Business  (131) Entertainment  (58) Environment  (17) Europe  (3) Family  (11) Featured  (4) Fox News  (1) Gas  (4) George W. Bush  (3) Goofy  (110) Grassroots  (5) Great Britain  (5) Headline  (1) Health  (24) Health Care  (17) Hillary Clinton  (1) Illinois Politics  (12) Immigration  (5) Iran  (6) Jimmy Carter  (1) Joe Biden  (5) Legal Issues  (8) Life  (69) Media  (81) Media bias  (26) Medicine  (16) Mexico  (6) Michelle Obama  (1) Military  (8) Mitt Romney  (4) Music  (3) Nancy Pelosi  (7) National Security  (13) North Korea  (2) Obamania  (43) Pirates  (1) Politics  (325) POTUS  (47) President Obama  (165) Religion  (5) Republicans  (30) Rush Limbaugh  (4) Russia  (3) Science  (28) SCOTUS  (1) Socialism  (8) Sports  (12) Stimulus  (34) TARP  (21) Taxes  (26) Technology  (2) Terrorism  (14) The House  (32) The Middle East  (5) The Senate  (27) The U.N.  (2) The World  (36) TSA  (1) Uncategorized  (1) Unions  (4) United States  (5) Venezuela  (5) Vice President  (5) W  (9) What Others are Saying …  (2)

Center Links

• Best Internet News and Politics
• Energy Power Alternatives
• The Economic Advisor

Conservative Links

• Cassy Fiano
• Charging Elephants
• FieryDog
• FitsNews.com
• Founding Bloggers
• Franklin’s Locke
• Hot Air » Top Picks
• Michelle Malkin
• nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com
• Pundit and Pundette
• Rob’s Rantings
• The National Review Online
• The New Republicans
• topconservativesontwitter.org
• Townhall.com
• urbanconservative.com

Great Forums

• Discarded Lies
• PurplePride.org

Liberal Links

• Dissenting Justice
• PCLiberal.com