From NRO ‘The Campaign Spot’:
The tour will begin at McCain field, named for the family in Mississippi. McCain will note in a speech there that a distant ancestor served on George Washington’s staff, and “it seems that my ancestors served in every conflict this country has fought”. One of the themes in that speech will be how government should support parents, and how it should help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children.
Holy. Crap. And this is the Republican candidate. Read that again: “government should support parents, and how it should help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children”. Just de-construct that for a moment. Is that not a phrase that should send cold shivers down the spines of anyone who thinks civil society has been fucked over by the state quite enough for the last fifty or so years, thank you very much?
Clearly the government does not want any old values passed on to the kiddies, so John McCain must see a role for state approved politically vetted family values. And what if someone want to pass on the values of respecting the property of others and so not tolerating proxy theft via third parties (like, say, the state), is Johnny going help out there somehow? How about atheism? Contrary to the popular perceptions, I know a great many God-Free Americans (almost all of whom are self-described hyphenated Republicans). Will the state give them a hand passing that one on to Junior too? How about utter contempt for the political elite and their army of functionaries? John McCain’s kind offer to ‘help‘ is another manifestation of the baseless arrogance of so many members of the political class who think that civil society revolves around the state and is something for them to tinker with.
So John, let me tell you how to “help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children”… mind your own goddamn business. There is nothing complicated about that.
Yup. As per here(Link) (scroll to the final picture). It never even crossed my mind to me to vote for the bastard.
Some of you may have already read this.
I still intend to vote Hillary if it is close. I hope to stockpile rotting political tomatoes and unload them at every opportunity. Gridlock is good. Another Whitewater would be peachy.
McCain will be the death of liberty. Either the direct cause, by the backlash, or both.
It’s just as easy to read “help, not complicate” as “stay the hell out of”. Certainly that would have echoes of a Reaganesque “Government is the problem” – even if McCain isn’t a Reagan in any way, it’s not an unprecedented sort of statement.
It might be best to wait for the actual speech before going off about it – even if there’s an excellent chance you’re right.
It’s best to wait for people to actually take a position before attacking it, rather than taking a summary of “themes” and reading a hostile position into the wording the summarizer came up with. Fair play, at least, suggests letting the man hang himself with his own words, not someone else’s offhand summary.
Oh, FGS. Here we go again, arguing the perfection of doctrinal purity and condemning to the 14th circle of Hades any politician who fails to come up to the mark.
Look, the question to ask yourself is this – which do you hate more? Your country? Or John McCain?
Forget all these angels-on-pinheads arguments – this is the choice we have. It may not be the choice you want, but it is the choice we have. If teaching John McCain a lesson in doctrinal purity is more important to you than the future of the whole country – then vote for Hillary. Hell, vote for Obama – if you want to put the country in the sh*tter, might as well put it in deep.
Yes, McCain is wrong, about many things. But Clinton and Obama are just as wrong about the same things, plus they are wrong about a whole lot of other things besides. And that is the choice we have.
Stop counselling people to cut off their own noses t just so that you can spite your face. All this talk of how it’s better to vote for a Democrat than for an insufficiently-pure Republican is a bunch of nonsense – because with a Democratic House and a Democratic President, they’ll finally be able to do to you, what they’ve been threatening to do all these years. That’s a pretty high price for all of us to pay, just so that you can say ‘well at least I din’t vote for McCain!’
llater,
llamas
Dude, John McCain’s political career did not start this year.
Damn, you think decrying interventionist government is some obscure angels-on-pinheads argument???
Yes, that is the choice you have. And whose fault is that? Well it is yours actually…and everyone else who held their nose and voted for the supposed Lesser Evil.
Can you not see the causal link between voting for statists and therefore always having to chose between odious statist A and, well, odious statist B? What possible motivation does a Republican candidate have to argue for an actual reduction in the scope of the state if all he has to do is offer to increase it at a slower rate than the other guy (or gal)? You want to blame someone for the increasingly poisonous political choices? Go look in a mirror.
If you want what is best in the long term for your country, you need to STOP voting with the short term in mind.
Perry de Havilland wrote:
Damn, you think decrying interventionist government is some obscure angels-on-pinheads argument???
Right now – yes , it is. Decrying interventionist, statist government is a wonderful thing, I do it all the time – but that train has now left the station, and we have to deal with what is – not what should be. I violently agree with you on the political issue – but the opprtunity to improve has passed, and now we must deal with the lesser of two evils.
Yes, that is the choice you have. And whose fault is that? Well it is yours actually…and everyone else who held their nose and voted for the supposed Lesser Evil.
I agree with you – again. Except that it’s not my fault – I didn’t vote for him in the primaries. The fact that not-enough others could be persuaded to vote for the candidate I would choose is unfortunate, and hurts me deeply – but is doesn’t change a thing.
Can you not see the causal link between voting for statists and therefore always having to chose between odious statist A and, well, odious statist B? What possible motivation does a Republican candidate have to argue for an actual reduction in the scope of the state if all he has to do is offer to increase it at a slower rate than the other guy (or gal)? You want to blame someone for the increasingly poisonous political choices? Go look in a mirror.
I see that link as well as you do – as well as anyone does. But seeing it is one thing, and persuading millions of others to a like appreciation, are two very different things. And please explain to me how the problem of having a range of candidates who are all more-or-less statist in their positions is solved – or even addressed – by voting for the most-statist-of-all? As has been sugested here, now and in the past? Please? How is this anything other than a childish tantrum?
If you want what is best in the long term for your country, you need to STOP voting with the short term in mind.
I did. Millions of others didn’t. Now I have to face the situation as it is – not as I would like it to be – and vote for the least-worst.
These are all wonderful arguments to have over a nice glass of wine with a bunch of like-minded people. I’ll cuss out the statist scum with the best of them – McCain included. But now we are down to cases, and all these arguments about doctrinal purity are exactly what I said – angels-on-pinheads. What would you have me do – not vote for McCain becasue he’s a statist? That gets me a) Clinton or b) Obama. Tell me again how that reduces the political power of the statists?
Remember – I agree with you.. But what hasn’t been cured, must be endured, and I for one am trying to endure it with the least amount of pain, suffering and long-term damage as possible.
llater,
llamas
That’s an ambiguous enough statement that I’m willing to hold off on condemning it until I hear the actual speech – as Sigivald said, it could well be a prelude to trying to lower government’s role. It’s sketchy, but not necessarily evil.
So when push came to shove and the votes were tallied (which is all they care about), the small state demographic proved yet again that it will vote for the big state fellah.
Why should they care what you want then? Please explain that to me. To actuially make the argument, you have to stop voting for them or the argument is pointless because it is so obvious what they have to do to buy your vote: increase the side of the state 2% rather than 3% like the other guy. They simply have no reason to take you seriously if that is all it takes.
How does endorsing and helping to entrench the Bad Guys help? Let them win without you. If you think a ‘protest’ vote is pointless, how is a ‘surrender’ vote any less so? Accept that things will get worse regardless. I say then let them get worse quickly and dramatically so that people notice, rather than incrementally, when it just becomes the norm. Let it be obvious what does NOT work.
Sure, it sucks. But the reality is that letting it get worse incrementally probably makes it worse in the long run and encourages a statist political monoculture across parties.
I read McCain’s comments as American political code for assuring the electorate that a McCain administration would battle State and local regulations that interfere with Constitutional right to rear one’s children in the manner you see fit. See the California attempt to stop homeschooling etc…
It would be nice to see the civil rights branch of the DOJ doing something positive for once.
I agree with Elizabeth et al here. Perry, you’ve completely misread McCain’s meaning.
To put it in the American political context, the opposite of “government supporting parents” is “government ramming a lot of school-enforced ideology down children’s throats.”
McCain has many flaws, but this is not one of them.
Perry, I have to agree with Elizabeth on this one. I simply didn’t read the McCain summary as you did. Perhaps I’m just being naive, but it could be saying that he wants governments at all levels to stop meddling in how parents raise their children. It certainly says nothing about vetting politically-approved parental values, religious or otherwise. I think you’re reading more into this than is really there. At least let’s wait to hear the entire speech, in context, as Sigivald suggests, before we excoriate it.
By the way, I’m no McCain supporter. I haven’t forgiven him for McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his pandering to Teddy Kennedy and his ilk, or his irrational stance on border security (and does anyone else remember the Keating 5?). I doubt very much that I will be able to vote for him this November, but I feel that way about the other two, also. There’s a good chance that I will just abstain from voting in this election, which has never happened before (I’ve been voting since 1972), and that’s distressing because it will mean . . . nothing. Just one more “apathetic” nonvoter. It just doesn’t occur to the pundits that, at least for some of us, the reason for our non-voting isn’t apathy, it’s despair over the quality of the choices offered.
Perry – agreed.
Elizabeth, Laird, etc. – I think McCain’s propensity for intervention is reasonably well-documented, and that propensity likely colours his statements with respect to education/children.
McCain isn’t interventionist to the extent that we’d find as “normal” in Western Europe or Canada (etc.), but he certainly does advocate policies that mandate more, rather than less, state involvement in society. And where the state takes on a role, civil society (and its individuals) lose openness and discretion.
“Government supporting parents” should quite rightly be ‘government leaving full decision-making and discretion’ to the individuals in question. I suspect that’s not what McCain has in mind when he talks about ‘government support’. I’m happy to be proven mistaken on this point, but even if so, there are a number of other interventionist policies that McCain seems to hold dear.
In the result, however, McCain seems to be the least-bad of an otherwise largely-interventionist lot (that is, of candidates who have any likelihood of success), and if I were American, he’d probably remain at the top of my shortlist come election-time. That’s the tricky issue, IMHO.
Elizabeth is right — and it goes beyond that.
McCain is taking a position against gub’mint educators who feel free to inculcate all manner of collectivist nonsense in children, yet will oppose parents’ efforts to teach their own children things which don’t comport.
Yes, Senator McCain has his flaws, yes his opponents are far worse, no this is not a good example.
I think by McCain stating the government should “help” not “complicate” indicates that he means less government intervention not more.
And to Perry’s argument about the lesser of two evils, I will say this:
When it comes down to the McCain or Obama lesser-of-tw-evils argument (Hillary is done folks, she probably won’t make it to the convention) I understand what Perry is getting at about the principle of not choosing ‘evil’ to begin with. Unfortunately for us in the US, as llama has pointed out, we don’t have the luxury of not voting for the lesser.
Obama CANNOT get elected. If he does, the Islamists will be able to roll back all the progress that has been made during the last seven years. Iraq will turn in to a bloodbath, Amadinnerjacket will laugh all the way to the nuclear silos, and he will push Pakistan in to the wilderness. Jimmy Carter did the same thing 30 years ago.
We simply cannot afford to let it happen again.
This was McCain in defense of McCain-Feingold. If that doesn’t scare you silly, you’re not paying attention. At least with Hillary, there will be Republicans in vitriolic opposition. With McCain, there would be disagreement only over what inconvenient rights to eliminate first. But with a ‘Republican’ president ‘Individual Rights’ and ‘the economy’would take the fall for the inevitable catastrophe.
People who insist that I and others like me are “trying to make a point”, or “demanding perfection or nothing”, or any other the other made-up charges are insistently ignoring what I have been saying for months. I’ll repeat it and type slowly. – The least damage to the country and to the future of liberty is to elect the most detestable enemy of liberty the Democrats have to offer. – You guys are supporting the Republican one who likes the same things you do. You are confusing goals and values. He wants the same superficial results but 200+ years of military tradition (both his father and grandfather were 4 star admirals) either indicate or have inculcated authoritarian assumptions.
You guys are in a political clip joint. And as closing time approaches, through your blurry eyes the last candidate standing at the Republican bar is looking better and better.
From that same article: “We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,”
You are going to wake up from your election hangover wearing shackles. Because your Republican defenders in congress will be unable to stand in opposition to a Republican president.
‘the economy’ should read ‘the free market’.
Midwesterner:
No, I don’t defend McCain Feingold. That was a deal breaker for me. There is truth in your observation that I back “last candidate standing at the Republican bar.” McCain was the last I could still support.
McCain is a free trader and incurred the wrath of his party for his support of liberalized immigration. I give him high marks for that, and I subtract no points for the career choice of his grandfather.
I question your concern about Republicans in Congress. They may support a GOP President but there won’t be enough of them to hurt anybody. The Democrats could well have a filibuster-proof majority to rubber stamp Senator Clinton’s or Senator Obama’s dirigisme. I don’t see where liberty ids served in giving three branches to the more collectivist party.
Midwesterner, all politicians scare me. The problem here is you are Perry are letting politicians, as you say, scare you silly, and silly is no better way to go through life than drunk and stupid.
You go to an election with the politicians you have. Can you tell me, with a straight face, that you think McCain will do more harm than Hillary “it takes a village” Clinton and Barak “oh, but it’s a voluntary mandate” Obama?
If so, then whatever the hell it is you’re on, I hope you brought enough for the entire class.
jk,
I wasn’t talking about McCain-Feingold. I was talking about what he said in its defense.
Charlie,
The two party system may not be the best, but at least we have two parties. I want a party in opposition. Not two parties arguing over how to best run our lives, but two parties arguing over whether to run our lives.
Your blind faith that the president (whoever it is) will get what they want is touchingly naïve. What the president will get is whatever congress sends. So we can have a Democrat caucus lined up with a Democrat president and the Republican caucus in opposition. Or we can have a Republican caucus lined up with Crossover McCain and the Democrat caucus in ‘opposition’.
How can you possibly believe the second case is preferable? Like it or not, the Whitehouse sets the policy for its party. I think you are the one who needs to share what you’re smoking.
Sure, and you and every other ‘lesser evil’ voter have only yourself to blame for that. Why? Because you keep voting for them. Are you then surprised when you get what you voted for?
jk,
A couple more added thoughts. First, I don’t subtract any points for his grandfather either. In most fields of endeavor I would consider his family’s history a plus. But McCain clearly sees everything through a good soldier’s eyes. I find it very sad, in light of his Officer’s Oath, that he is more defensive of the Geneva Convention than of the United States Constitution.
He has taken that oath at least three times (military, house, senate) and then cashed paychecks from the taxpaying citizens of the United States.
As for your other point, I am less concerned about the possibility of Democrats actually cooperating with each other so long as we have an energetic Republican caucus than I am of a McCain presidency cooperating with some faction of the Democrat majority. McCain is a benevolent authoritarian. I would rather have a crook. It’s time for that C S Lewis quote. I’m a Chicago native. Obama came up through the Chicago political machine. It’s safe to say he’s a crook. And Hillary, well …
OK, I agree with Midwesterner: it would be better to have the Republicans seek to oppose leftist crap, which they would do if the leftist crap came from the other party’s President. When it comes from their own party’s President, they feel they have to support it, no matter ow statist and stupid (see Bush’s federal perscription drug plan, Bush’s federalization of airport security, his creation of the massive, ineffectual bureaucracy that is Homeland Security, etc.)
There is no doubt in my mind (not should there be in anyone’s, given his record) that McCain is a statist with no respect for the Constitution or individual rights in gerneral. So if he became President, all sorts of liberty-stilfing leftist crap would be spewing from the White House; crap that Congressional Democrats would be thrilled to support, and Congressional Republicans would feel obligated to support.
This is bad. (Like, crossing the streams bad.) It would be much better to have some freakin’ opposition to the government’s further leftward motion.
However! When I make this very case to my mother (a very Republican woman who loathes McCain but will vote for him as the lesser of two evils), she replies that there almost certainly won’t be enough Republicans in Congress and the Senate for there to be any meaningful opposition to a President Obama or Hillary. So, she says, that strategy’s a loser too.
OK, fellow freedom-lovers: how do I counter that one? Midwesterner, can you lend some of your wisdom to a chick from Champaign-Urbana? 🙂
I’ve heard of going ugly early, but…damn!
In this election it is a question of minimizing your losses or maximizing them. McCain may occasionally have to listen to Republicans. The Democrats will feel no such obligation.
Sadly the so called party of the military is clueless about strategy.
Fortunately we have Obama, who should give McCain a boost in the general.
I hate interventionist government. That is why I’m voting for the Democrat.
Perry – are you insane?
And what about the war? You voting for McClellan because Lincoln is insufficiently Republican?
You know our real problem is what the population wants not what McCain will deliver. McCain is a symptom. He is not the problem. Fred Thompson couldn’t get any traction.
Laura,
You might try showing her first this chart.
And then this one.
Then ask her how much she can take for two years.
The bottom line is that Republican presidents do not support small government. They only support small taxes and big debt. And while Reagan was good on domestic rights, Nixon and the two Bushes were/are appalling. There is only one reason to vote for a Republican president and that is for international defense. On that category, Hillary is adequate, Obama is worst possible.
As for those who think McCain with his Naval Academy training and honorable military service in a war in southeast Asia will automatically make him good on defense, well, we had a president who also graduated from the Naval Academy and served in a war in southeast Asia (Korea). How did that work out?
The reality is that at least as far back as U. S. Grant, good soldiers have not always made good Heads of State. But sometimes ethically challenged duplicitous politicians have not been so bad. That C S Lewis quote is very apt.
There is going to be an interventionist government regardless of who wins, so all that matters is figuring out how to play the long term.
In the short term, the Dems will be worse. In the long term, endorsing Big State Republicans will actually do the most damage. Ergo it is insane to vote Republican.
I doubt Hilary would be any worse and it any case, it is not the most important issue.
First of all it was John McCain who was one of the very few Senators to oppose No-Child-Left-Behind – I see he has still got no credit for that risky stand. Indeed he got over the head when he brought it up early in the nomination campaign.
I also note he has got no credit at all for opposing the big house mortgage bailout plans – another very risky stand.
Now for this statement.
John McCain was arguing AGAINST recent government interventions.
Specifically the Californian ban on home schooling, and the practices in various places to encourage the children to do X, Y, Z and to brainwash the children with a lot of “progressive” propaganda – either allowing the parents to withdraw their children from these events or by not even telling them what is going on.
“But education is nothing to do with the Federal government” – I agree it should not be, but it has come up in every Federal election in my lifetime (although the teachers unions only started openly siding with the Democrats in the 1976 election for President).
“But John McCain should simply say that government should not be involved in education – not talk about government helping not hurting or whatever”.
Yes that is the way I would talk.
AND I WOULD HAVE GOT NOWHERE.
The language that John McCain (or rather the campaign people) are using is the language you have to use if you want to stand any chance of winning the election.
Say “government should not be involved” and you might as well slit your wrists. Say “government is hurting parents and children right now, I want government to help parents by no longer……” and you just might get a hearing.
I know – I hate it is as well. But that is politics.
People who supported George Walker Bush in the last two elections have no excuse for not supporting John McCain – Bush is a LOT worse.
Midwestener:
John McCain does not believe that campaign contributions are covered by the First Amendment – that is why he put it in quotation marks. He is NOT saying he does not care about First Amedment rights – he is denying that it a First Amenment matter, hence the quotation marks. It is like saying “so called”.
Both you and me hold that he is wrong – but Clinton and Obama do not (neither does Bush of course).
And yes one really does have to use language (not his words but from the campaign) “help not complicate how parents pass on their values to their children”.
One can speak Paul Marks style – i.e. say that education is nothing to do with the government. But one can only talk like me if one is NOT running for high office – or does not care about losing.
This is the sort of language a person running for high office has to use even (indeed ESPECIALLY) if they want to REDUCE government intervention in education .
I know the language sucks – see above.
Sorry for three comments in a row, but I have just worked out what Midwesterner meant by vote for Hillary Clinton.
You did not mean in a primary did you (Wisconsin has come and gone). You meant in the general election.
First there will be no “gridlock” – the Democrats control the House and Senate (and many of the Republicans in both of these places have not guts for a big fight anyway).
Nor will there be a Whitewater (etc) – everyone knows that the Clintons are corrupt, if Senator Hillary Clinton is elected President it will be because most people have decided that they do not care (so fresh corruption stories will not matter).
“Death of liberty” – yes Clinton would be that. Accept that you meant McCain would be that and that is why you intend to vote for Clinton.
Why not vote for Senator Obama – after all the only real policy difference between him and Senator Clinton.
I am astonished (to put it mildly) that some American conservatives and libertarians are going to try and help the left turn the United States into another Britain.
For that is what this hatred of John McCain amounts to.
People who voted twice for George Walker Bush (a man way to the left of McCain on government spending) are now saying the will not vote for John McCain – or will do so only half heartedly.
Unless everyone gets involved and tries to influence the campaign (and the future McCain Administration) as much as possible you will have sold the pass.
And you may well wake up to a President Clinton or (more likely) a President Obama.
“Why should you care – you are British”.
And so will you be – if you let the Democrats win in November.
Paul,
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article Three, Section 2 says ; “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”. The SCOTUS determines what the first amendment means when it protects ‘speech’.
If McCain is not rejecting the first amendment, then he is rejecting Article Three. Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.
Paul,
Did you actually read my comments? I think not. You have said before that you don’t read links. My opinions are supported by the data in the links. Your’s are not. You are wrong and you are making false statements about what I and others are saying.
I frankly am astonished at the amount of effort you exert trying to turn the Republican party into another UK style ‘conservative’ party.
The US Supreme Court does NOT determine what the First Amendment means. Jefferson’s tripartite doctrine is the truer interpretation; everyone who has a Constitutional power to exercise may interpret the Constitution as to their own conscience, and exercise their Constitutional power accordingly.
Moreover, it should be easier to remove judges from office, as Jefferson noted.
Last time I held my nose and voted for the pseudo-constitutionalist who was running as a Libertarian. This time I won’t hold my nose. Either I’ll cast a blank, or I’ll vote for someone honest and not so brain-dead as to be destructive of the US. But I will vote. I will not surrender my conscience to the sh*theads who pretend that my LONG-term choices are limited.
tdh,
Quote article and section, please. What I quoted says “the judicial power shall extend in all cases all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution.”
All cases. If I believe that a branch of the tripartite government has abrogated my constitutional rights, I may bring a case. The judiciary, not the president or the legislature are granted the the constitution jurisdiction to rule on that case. The president and the legislature are expected to exercise their own powers as they interpret the constitution. But when they are challenged (signing statements maybe?) then it is SCOTUS’ word that decides.
But perhaps I am wrong. Can you name a constitutional challenge between branches or between citizens and the government in which the constitution does not grant judicial authority to the, er, judicial? I’m pretty sure the judicial branch was ignored at least once since Marbury, the name of the case I have in mind slips my mind at the moment. Something that happened in Georgia or SC, maybe?. Or maybe they caved to avoid letting a dictatorial president destroy the separation of powers.
What you are claiming is that whatever Alberto Gonzales tells ‘W’ he can do is okay with the constitution. Because that is how they worked. Sorry. Not buying.
Perry, a question-
Do you really believe that not voting will make a difference? If all those who would have voted for a libertarian president decided to abstain, would that alter the system?
Americans, please tell us what would happen if nobody voted for any candidate? Wouldn’t the speaker of the House have the authority of the President?
Here in Australia, we have compulsory attendance, but they can’t stop you from voting informally (not ticking the paper).
Is voting compulsory or voluntary in Britain?
Let me turn your question around… does voting for Republicans who increase the size of the state do anything other than increase the size of the state?
Unless people stop voting for The Lesser Evil, members of the political class will simply never see the need to service that demand (because in electoral terms, there is no demand… demand is created by voting for what you do want, not by voting for what you do NOT want).
However I am not arguing for ideological purity, I am arguing a practical issue that the supporters of the cause of liberty have made themselves politically and institutionally less and less relevant by repeatedly, year after year, voting for people who will simply not give them what they want.
Make a simple test: will a candidate meaningfully roll back the scope of the state after four years? If so, vote for them. If all a candidate will do is increase the state less than the other guy, do not vote for them, because if you do, you have only yourself to blame when the state increases in size.
You need to be willing to let the even worse guy win or you are simply NOT building a political movement, you are just reacting defensively to someone else’s political movement. In war, sometimes you have to give ground to the enemy, allow them to advance, while you build up for a counter attack later. By always standing and fighting (i.e. voting the Lesser Evil rather than falling back), you lose less ground this time but you also bring yourself no closer to ever being able to
go in the offensive because your time and resources have not been spent on achieving what you REALLY want.
Perry
I have enjoyed your posts and comments for many years, but your beliefs against lesser-of-two-evils voting have never appealed to me.
A Pew poll in the US classified 9% of the populace libertarian. You can question polls’ accuracy, but deep down do you feel that number is really wrong? I think it is pretty close. In a 51% electoral world, the nine can influence policy at the margins.
Midwesterner is right that it is not just McCain-Feingold; Senator McCain is incredibly cavalier about what I feel is our most important right. All the same, both of his aspiring opponents want to socialize health care, raise taxes and terminate existing trade agreements.
Senator McCain is good on taxes, trade, and his health care proposal makes health care more free market. If I punish the GOP for not giving me my libertarian ideal, I get socialized medicine, protectionism, raised capital gains, income, and payroll taxes — whom am I punishing again?
Not voting for the lesser of two evils sounds very principled — until you facilitate the election of the greater evil.
Midwesterner.
Show me a link where John McCain says he rejects the right of the Supreme Court to judge what the First Amendment applies to.
He was expressing an OPINION about the First Amendment – an opinon shared by President Bush.
I think they are both wrong – so I AGREE WITH YOU.
However to claim this is a good reason to vote against John McCain is false as he does NOT reject the right of the Supreme Court to strike down McCain-Feingold.
As for “links”.
The last time you sent me links it was over the “Jena Six”.
The tree was NOT “whites only”.
The nooses on the tree were NOT directed at black students – they were directed at a rival school’s football team (the cowboys – sometimes called “the outlaws” do you understand now?).
The boy who the black gang tried to kick to death (long afterwards) HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOOSES. The whole nooses and “whites only tree” thing was thought up as a SCAM to help out some gang bangers who were in trouble.
And the chief black “victim” (according to you and your links) was later photographed on his bed with vast amounts of money that he had scammed from people who thought he was being railroaded by the racist South.
He also bought himself a Harley (and so on and so on).
Perhaps I am being tough on you.
But common sense is more important than links.
Whether links about the “Jena Six” or about John McCain’s plots against the Supreme Court.
In your heart you do not believe in this stuff.
Midwesterner.
No John McCain does not dispute the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down McCain-Finegold.
Like President Bush he does not hold that the 1st Amendment covers campaign contributions – and LIKE YOU I hold them to be both wrong.
If your links say different to the above then your links are wrong.
As they were over the “Jena Six” – as I explained in tbe comment that the bot did not like.
As for “lesser evil” voting.
I do not hold a man who wants to do away with all earmarks, cut taxes, deregulate many things (including the health insurance market) and, most importantly, is in favour of entitlement program reform, to be evil.
Especially if one compares John McCain to George Bush.
John McCain is not David Cameron.
No it is not wrong, just not as relevant as you think. Most of those folks will already not vote for a Big State Republican. I tend to not call myself a libertarian much either these days as there are too many idiotarians who do. I would say 80% of the people I know in the USA who want a smaller state call themselves Republicans in the Goldwater tradition.
Those are the people who are (a) reachable (b) to blame for the Republican Party producing the likes of George Bush and John McCain because they kept voting for the Lesser Evil.
Those are the people about whom I actually care because there are actually quite a lot of them. Those are also the folks who can form the basis for a viable small-state political movement. Imagine Reagan but without having to worry about the Cold War. Goldwater Republicans will not pass many libertarian purity tests but I really don’t care about that over much. We can all turn on each other later but only once we are moving in the right direction 🙂
However they need to stand up and be counted, or more accurately, they need to be conspicuous by their absence every time the Republican Party offers up a Big Government candidate.
jk,
Check out the consequences of various combinations of Dem/Rep House/Senate/Whitehouse in my comment a at March 29, 2008 05:07 PM. The government spends less. That is a very useful indicator of what the government is inflicting on us.
The idea of a president as a dictator is an illusion. The president can only dictate to his/her own party. The other party is typically uncontrolled and following their instincts. If the Republicans are going to follow any instincts, I would rather it be their own and not McCain’s.
Have you been following Hillary’s description of dodging bullets to get to safety in Yugoslavia? It is very entertaining. She is a lousy liar and about as smooth as broken glass. If any thing will inspire the Republicans in congress (who are the ones that really matter) to act like Republicans, it is Hillary, not McCain. I also, especially after becoming more acquainted with UK politics, think that you are making a tactical error. How did the Conservative party in the UK disappear? I believe it was because its members voted for the lesser of two evils a few too many times. What is your (or any other reader’s) theory of the demise of the UK Conservative party? They voted for a few too many Bushes and McCains.
I do not believe ‘the people’ are leading governance to the left. I believe they are following it.
Paul,
To put things the way you do, you are doing the equivalent of saying “The sky is blue and therefore I have proven your claim that cows eat grass to be wrong.” You really need to actually read the links attentively if you are going to make pronouncements on them. If you don’t bother to read them, don’t comment on what you didn’t read.
You are making repeated claims about how terrible awful bad end of the world things will be if a Democrat gets elected president. And that it will be especially bad if Congress is in Democrat hands.
But the truth is that government spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product in a category called “human resources” that includes “such things as social security and Medicare, sometimes called entitlements, went up and then down under Reagan, finishing about where it started. Aside from that, every other time since 1947 that federal spending on social programs went down was under a Democrat president. Not a Republican.
I believe that government spending, especially spending on social programs, is the single biggest indicator of run away, out of control government.
Your fears do not match the facts.
Paul,
I just saw your smited Jena comment. You said:
Okay. Then what does your common sense tell you about a community where:
You are using the stupid but understandable actions of a teenager after winning a legal appeal to excuse the actions of the Jena legal system. A legal system in a community that twice voted for Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke by a 2 to 1 margin. If you stop reading the two extremes MSM rantings and instead look at the actual witness’s (both called and, significantly, not called) statements, you will see plenty of things to suggest problems in that community’s system of justice.
But this thread is not about Jena. This thread is about what would be the consequences if John McCain were elected president. You asked for my source for the McCain 1st amendment quote. I found it in this op-ed by Matt Welch.
Marbury v. Madison was (1) a claim by the Judicial branch that (2) it was its “province” — not its exclusive province — to decide such matters. There are manifest mechanisms (impeachment, appointment, &c) in the US Constitution for undoing bad decisions, so in the long term neither the Kelo decision nor the McCain-Feingold (forget the suit name) decision need stand. These mechanisms would be improved vastly by lowering the criteria, or by treating as lowered the criteria, for removing corrupt judges from office — as all of the anti-Kelo judges should have been.
As for references on what the Constitution means, unfortunately you will not find these in the US Constitution itself. If I happen to come across these in the next few days, w.r.t. interpreting the Constitution, I’ll provide some. In the meantime, you’ll have to take my word for it that Jefferson himself would have strenuously disagreed with you, and furthermore, I would suggest getting an education from some of the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, before piling more of the usual sciolistic manure atop the Constitution; don’t give corrupt members of the US Supreme Court deeper political cover for their crimes.
Midwestner:
I have already pointed to places where you were wrong about the “Jena Six”. But if investigations by journalists from National Review and Human Events do not convince you I am not going to.
As for Bobby J. – perhaps the locals did vote against him because he was brown.
But I would not be surprised if he got more of the white vote than he did of the black vote. And I would not be surprised if he lost in 2003 because he was a kid barely out of his 20’s who had no real experience.
I what percentage of the vote he got in the area in 2007 – or did you not look that up?
As for John McCain.
You hold that under a Democrat President government spending is less likely to go up than under a Republican.
But we are not talking about “a Democrat” – we are talking about Senator Clinton or Senator Obama perhaps the two most ardent Welfare Statists in Washington D.C.
Against them is John McCain – who has never voted for a tax increase, who has proposed tax cuts as a central part of his platform, who has long opposed earmarks, who is in favour of deregulation (for example of the health insurance market) and, most importantly, is in favour of entitlement program.
Sure he is no Ron Paul and he is not as good as Fred Thompson either – but John McCain has a good voting record and good policy proposals.
But the voting record and the policy proposals do not matter to you – you are going oppose him anyway.
The late Barry Goldwater got tired of trying to reason with certain religious leaders and said “every true Christian should kick Jerry Falwell up the ass” over J.F.s endless demands that government should enforce sexual morality.
Goldwater did not really believe that people should physically attack J.F. – he was just pissed off.
John McCain has had similar problems with certain relgious leaders in the past.
Your problem with John McCain is different.
McCain (like Bush AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION) hold that the First Amendment does not cover campaign finance contributions.
You hold them all to be wrong.
AND I AGREE WITH YOU.
Let us leave at that.
No. But rather that social spending has never gone down under a Republican. It has gone down four times, under Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton. Johnson of ‘Great Society’ fame is the only Democrat president who didn’t have any reductions during his term according to the chart I linked. And except for Truman, the drops in social spending were rather consistent through their terms. This information surprised me and I’ve wondered about it. A cynical person would say it is because Democrats promise the world and don’t deliver, Republicans promise at lot less and seems inclined to actually deliver it. At least that’s one possible theory.
Yes, Paul. Exactly. And I can just as well point to four out of five Democrats (since WWII) lowering social spending and six out of six Republicans raising social spending and observe that it does not matter to you. You will support campaign promises over reality.
Believe me. I do not like Hillary. I cringe every time she is on the TV. So does every liberty minded person I know. And a lot of others as well. And that is a good thing. There is a truism I’ve heard among dairy farmers. Mean bulls never kill anybody. Nobody ever gives them the opportunity. Every time we hear of someone killed by a bull, it is a ‘good’ bull. ‘Never a bit of trouble.’ And somebody trusted it but shouldn’t have. Nobody but nobody, not even her supporters will let down their guard with Hillary. And that is a good thing.
tdh,
You called me a socialist. How very cute. There are a lot of names I could reasonably be called. But you chose ‘socialist’. The rest of your comment is equally uninformed.
Midwesterner needs a lesson in vocabulary and in reading comprehension, in addition to a lesson on history and the Constitution. The word “sciolist” has a meaning quite different from that of the word “socialist” — although the latter almost of necessity implies the former. Consult a dictionary if there is any confusion. Ironically, it is manifest that my choice of the word “sciolist” was accurate.
Check out Federalist 49 for an early statement of the coordinate status of the branches of government in interpreting their powers under the US Constitution.
Search for terms like “concurrent review”, “tripartite theory”, and “tripartite doctrine” for further information.
It’s a great pity that God-damned Federalist party hacks hijacked the judiciary early. But there is no necessity in living with all that they wreaked, or in pretending that their lingering authority is just.
Since you are quoting the Federalist Papers in defense of you claims, might I refer you to No. 78, where it says:
…that social spending has never gone down under a Republican. It has gone down four times, under Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton. Johnson of ‘Great Society’ fame is the only Democrat president who didn’t have any reductions during his term according to the chart I linked. And except for Truman, the drops in social spending were rather consistent through their terms. This information surprised me and I’ve wondered about it. A cynical person would say it is because Democrats promise the world and don’t deliver, Republicans promise at lot less and seems inclined to actually deliver it. At least that’s one possible theory.
Sigh. There are many intelligent comments on this thread and I have wrestled with the lesser of two evils argument myself. But surely people sophisticated enough to debate this ethical argument understand that the President does not set the budget. While some of the responsibility is his, the majority of the responsibility lies with Congress. Our founding fathers gave them the “power of the purse” and they write and approve the budget each year. The president gives them a wish list, but that is all it is. The only time spending has slowed down in recent years was after the Republicans Revolution in 1994 (which did not have a full impact until the 1995 budget). This only lasted for a few years, then the Republicans also became intoxicated with power and, encouraged by the election of big-spender Bush, went on a spending binge too. However, when the Democrats regained power in the election of 2006, spending did not even slow down a whit (instead it continued to increase).
If people are going to make budgetary judgments on party lines, then at least do so intelligently and look at which party is in power in Congress, not the White House. For my part, I’ve come to the cynical conclusion that the only fiscally conservative party is the one out-of-power.
Lance
Also in the MidWestern USA
This post is regarding the lesser of two evil arguments.
I have a great deal of sympathy for those who say they would never vote for the lesser evil. Although I have little sympathy for those who turnaround and advocate then voting for the greater evil. It is hard to take ethical arguments seriously from those whom propose that the ends justify the means.
Voltaire wrestled with this very issue centuries ago. His conclusion: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In other words, some good is better than no good (or more bluntly yet, vote for the lesser evil).
I despise John McCain. He has proven himself to be an arrogant liar (for example, his constantly changing reasons why he opposed the Bush tax cuts) with little knowledge or respect for the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend. McCain-Feingold is an abomination and I am further dismayed that our tyrants in SCOTUS largely supported it although at least they did carve out a safe harbor last year.
However, I still may vote for McCain. If he nominates a true conservative as a running mate, I definitely will do so. Although this puts me in the ethically dubious position on reflecting on McCain’s age and wondering if he will survive four years as President. Given McCain’s general ignorance on most domestic issues, I believe his Vice President would have some real influence and could realistically become president if McCain’s health fails.
If McCain does not pick a conservative running mate, then I do not know if I will vote for him or a third-party. I will not vote for the greater evil. The only reason why I would consider voting for McCain is because of the SCOTUS. For all his faults, President Bush has appointed two well-qualified and honest men to the Supreme Court. I expect two (and possibly more) Justices to retire during the next President’s term of office (definitely Stevens, probably Ginsburg). Stevens and Ginsburg are two of the more activist (liberal, big government) Justices on the court. We have hopes of taming our out-of-control SCOTUS in my lifetime. These hopes could be crushed if two more activist judges were appointed to replace Stevens and Ginsburg. Hillary or Obama would nominate bad judges. While I am concerned about those McCain would nominate (if he could, he’d probably pick those who support McCain-Feingold), the odds are his picks would be better than that of Hillary or Obama.
Yes, the judiciary has a power to declare laws unconstitutional, and it has some transient independence. But it is not the only branch of government to have this power, it is not the only branch to be independent, and its decisions are nullifiable in several ways, the power residing both in the other branches and, ultimately, in the people (to the extent that democracy is not subverted).
The US Supreme Court does not decide what the First Amendment means. It is one of several entities that get to take specific actions in support of their interpretation of the Constitution.
The decision in Marbury v. Madison is so frequently misrepresented, and was even in early days by Federalist party hacks, that it is worth special attention. It, too, is not arrogant enough to claim the sole power of interpreting the Constitution. Read it, or an accurate summary of it, if you want to stop parroting the words of incompetent secondary-school teachers.
If Bush has “appointed two well-qualified and honest men to the Supreme Court”, who are they, given that Alito is neither honest nor well-qualified?
You answered an opinion with an opinion, fair enough. However, why do you have a negative opinion of Alito? Do you have any evidence that he is dishonest? From all I have read, integrity is one of the values by which he lives and nothing has every come up to challenge this.
I certainly cannot understand why any knowledgeable person would say Alito was unqualified. He was formerly a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals. He served in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged. He has been a federal prosecutor and had argued a dozen cases before the SCOTUS as assistant to the solicitor general. He studied law at Yale and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Even most of the left-wing critics did not fight his qualifications, just his belief that judges should enforce the law instead of making the law. Why do you think he is unqualified?
Midwesterner – so you want to continue this (fair enough).
The family of the gang leader (not just the gang leader) ripped off the defence fund.
The gang leader was as guilty as sin – and was let off because of political pressure (that is the real scandal).
As for the rest of it:
Clinton is not going to be the candidate – Obama is.
If Hillary (by some weird chance) became President – the Republican MINORITY (no gridlock) in House and Senate would fall down dead.
Either Hillary or Obama will increase the entitlement programs even faster than they are increasing anyway (as opposed to John McCain who has long supported reform of the entitlement programs).
President Truman did not support reducing Social Security (virtually the only Federal government “social progam” that existed in his day).
J.F.K. did not support the reduction of any social programs – although his main interest was increasing defence spending. Nor were any social programs got rid of in his day by a Republican Congress – because their was no Republican Congress and no social programs got hit.
President Carter (the man who created the Deparment of Education) did not support the reduction of social programs. Ditto about Congress and the social programs.
Clinton had welfare reform forced on him – but managed to slip SCHIP in (which has grown the like the cancer it is).
Ronald Reagan managed to cut some domestic programs (although he increased defense spending more than he cut other stuff).
The last President to actually CUT government spending.
That would be Warren Harding (he was not a Democrat).
The last President to cut government spending as a percentage of the economy (as opposed to actual cash terms as Harding did) – I believe that was Calvin Coolidge (he was not a Democrat either).
You ALREADY KNOW ALL OF THE ABOVE.
So why I am wasting my time telling you things that, deep down, you already know?
I do not know – so I will stop doing it.
As for links….
You know well that I went down every link that you offered on the “Jena Six” – and you know what I thought of the stuff on the other end of those links.
In Alito’s opinion in Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks (forget the exact case name), Alito effectively lied about what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers w.r.t. faction. He quoted Madison disparaging faction, then came to a conclusion the exact opposite of Madison’s without taking Madison’s arguments into account, and advocated reducing rather than multiplying factions as a solution to the problem of faction.
Alito happened to do this in the service of the Bipartisan parties, to continue suppressing competition. You’ve got to wonder how big a conflict of interest was involved.
The fact that Alito was incapable of getting something so basic right means that whatever chairs he warmed, he should have been disrobed rather than promoted.
Honesty is a matter of discipline, not mere intention. If Alito intends to be honest, given that he falls far short, he is incompetent as well. If he does not intend to be honest, he deserves far stronger condemnation.
I have never heard an apology from Alito for that execrable opinion. I don’t expect one, given the presence of so many corrupt judges on the Supreme Court.
I’ve done a bit of homework on your point and many people agree that this was not Alito’s finest moment. However, your judgment that this was deliberate deception requires you to be a mind reader. In my readings, most reviewers who agreed with your legal point were far less judgmental about Alito’s motives. For example, this reviewer stated that Anyone who remembers Federalist, No. 10, will suspect that Alito himself did not review Madison’s words before he wrote his decision. The essay is only eight pages long in most printed versions, so re-reading it isn’t much of a burden. Madison actually said the opposite of what Alito says. Madison agreed that factionalism is harmful. He wrote, “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
Psychologists and Marketers are very familiar with a concept named perception bias. It refers to a tendency for people to pay attention to what meets their preconceptions and ignore things that disagree with it. If Alito dislikes factionalism, it is likely that he remembered Madison’s dislike of factionalism, but forgot Madison’s conclusion. True, this shows Alito has flaws (like any man), but it is hardly ground for questioning his honesty or competence. If you cannot come up with anything stronger than this, you are being very judgmental and holding Alito to a ridiculously high standard that I doubt any mortal man could make.
At any rate, thank you for calling this case to my attention. I enjoy learning new things and reading the various commentaries on the case was interesting.