Tag Archives: elections

Op-Eds

Presidential Politics: They’re All Conservatives

Leave a comment
"The Great Presidential Puzzle": &qu...
“The Great Presidential Puzzle”: “Illustration shows Senator Roscoe Conkling, leader of the Stalwarts group of the Republican Party, playing a puzzle game. All blocks in the puzzle are the heads of the potential Republican presidential candidates, among them Grant, Sherman, Tilden, and Blaine. Parodies the famous 14-15 puzzle. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As reliably as seconds ticking by on an expensive wristwatch, Republican presidential candidates loudly and vehemently identify themselves as “conservatives.” We’re used to hearing politicians lie, but these politicians are telling the truth for once. They ARE all conservatives.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, lie constantly about their political orientations. They label themselves “liberals” or even “progressives.” But they are conservatives, too.

Since FDR’s New Deal, politicians of all stripes have consistently tried to link conservatism with “smaller government.” But that’s not what conservatism is, or ever has been about. Conservatism is about conserving.

What does it mean to conserve something? “To keep in a safe or sound state; to save; to preserve; to protect” (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 edition).

What does political conservatism aim to save, preserve, protect? The existing system. As William F. Buckley, Jr. put it, political conservatism consists of “standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” (or, in the case of conservatism’s “progressive” variant, “yelling slow down”). And that, in a nutshell, is the platform and program of every serious candidate for either major party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Sure, there are differences in emphasis. But they’re not especially significant.

The candidates who call themselves conservatives are hell-bent on preserving the post-WWII garrison state by way of the single largest welfare (mostly corporate welfare) entitlement program in the federal budget: They want to maintain “defense spending” at a rate ten times that of America’s nearest competitor (China). They describe proposals to even limit the growth of that budget line as “draconian cuts.” When it comes to “social” programs like Social Security, they occasionally talk about minor cuts or privatization … but only by way of “saving” the system, not abolishing it.

The conservative candidates who call themselves “progressives” come at it from the opposite direction: Their priority is saving those “social” programs. When it comes to military spending, they occasionally talk about tiny cuts, or perhaps capping increase rates, but as the Obama administration demonstrates, even those minor modifications are not hills they’re prepared to make their last stands on.

If we think of politics as a 360-degree circle, the differences between modern American “conservatism” and modern American “progressivism” cover maybe five degrees, just to the right of zero. Those boundaries are, to mix metaphors, third rails. Step on them and die — or at least, as Rand Paul has discovered, get a nasty jolt encouraging you to hurry back into safe territory.

In reality, there are only two available political directions: Society can become more libertarian, or it can become more authoritarian (and eventually totalitarian). The conservative candidates of both parties offer only the latter option.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

In 2016, Let’s Have Real Presidential Debates

1 Comment

RGBStock.com Vote Pencil

Every four years, the Commission on Presidential Debates puts on a series of campaign commercials disguised as presidential and vice-presidential debates.

The CPD is, in theory, a non-profit organization “established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.”

But the CPD is really just a scam the Republican and Democratic Parties use to funnel illegally large “in kind” campaign donations, in the form of tens of millions of dollars’ worth of free media exposure, exclusively to their own candidates.

A real non-partisan, non-profit debate organization would use objective criteria for deciding which candidates may participate in debates. The CPD continuously refines its criteria with an eye toward ensuring  that no third party or independent candidates qualify for a microphone at a CPD “debate.”

Billionaire independent/Reform Party candidate Ross Perot managed to jump through their hoops in 1992, afterward polling 19% in the general election. CPD excluded him in 1996, cutting his vote percentage down to 8%. Since then, CPD has successfully excluded additional candidates from their Democrat/Republican campaign infomercials.

Libertarians aren’t fans of laws limiting the people’s ability to give their money — as much of it as they want — to the candidates they support. But if there are going to be such rules, they should apply across the board.

That’s why the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, both parties’ 2012 presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and 2012 Justice Party presidential nominee Rocky Anderson are suing CPD. The Our America Initiative, headed up by 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson, is coordinating the legal challenge.

The relief the plaintiffs seek is simple: That if the CPD is going to pretend to be a non-profit, non-partisan debate organization, it be required to start acting like one. Instead of giving the Republicans and Democrats a free series of campaign infomercials, CPD  must put on real debates,  open to all candidates who are legally qualified for the office they seek and whose names appear on enough state ballots for them to hypothetically win the election.

Would victory in this suit make a real difference for third party and independent candidates? Absolutely. Exposure in the debates might or might not put Libertarians or Greens over the top, but it would at least expose the American public to the real panoply of choices instead of to one pre-selected pair.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Can the President Ignore the Supreme Court?

Leave a comment
U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ben Carson is the longest of long shots in the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination contest.  A distinguished neurosurgeon, Carson captured the hearts of many conservatives with his comments at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, in which he positioned himself as pretty much the exact opposite of US president Barack Obama.

We won’t see him onstage accepting his party’s nomination next summer. He’s one of those interesting combinations — political novice and snappy-answer gadfly — who just can’t compete in the money and endorsements game and usually end up finding they don’t connect very well with voters, either.

But those same difficulties also liberate him to pose tough questions and step on the third rails that more experienced politicians carefully avoid. Like this one:

Is the Supreme Court really constitutionally empowered to review laws passed by Congress, veto those laws if it deems them unconstitutional, and order the president of the United States to act accordingly?

It’s a good question, albeit one most people considered long settled. Carson brought it up on Fox News Sunday. “The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch. The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch …. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. It is an open question.”

The Court first set aside a law as unconstitutional in 1794. In 1804 Chief Justice John Marshall formalized that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Ever since, with few exceptions (Andrew Jackson ignored the Court’s ruling against forcibly moving the Cherokee; Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Taney’s Civil War ruling that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus), presidents have generally acknowledged the Court’s authority.

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that the framers intended to empower the Court to review statutes for constitutionality, and that they didn’t. It’s worth considering the plain text of Article III of the Constitution, which empowers the court over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.”

Since the Constitution declares itself “the supreme Law of the Land,” it seems to me that the justices can’t avoid weighing subordinate laws in light of that “supreme law” and setting aside those which violate it. If they’re not, per Article III, empowered to do exactly that, what’s the purpose of an independent judiciary?

While the Constitution does not itself mention “checks and balances,” the framers did. They set the Supreme Court on an equal level with Congress and the presidency for a reason. The three branches restrain each other. Not always and never perfectly, but the Court has on many occasions proven itself a worthy last resort in defense of our liberties.

When it comes to restraining government, I’d much rather see the power of the imperial presidency curtailed.  Hearing him pose this question makes me glad that Carson, who seems to style himself a George W. Bush style “decider,” will never have the opportunity to test his theory of the Court’s role.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY