I think I might well be the only one here who has been a journalist, or at least majored in it and saw my byline appear above the fold in a couple of newspapers ere I headed off to art school. So it's incumbent upon me to speak up in light of some of the charges of bias that are bandied about here in recent days...
I've known correspondents who are in war zones, though I can't think of anyone I personally know who is in the thick of this one. And it's important for all sides to realize that every piece of news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan bears the indelible stamp of the person who wrote it. Conservative, liberal, libertarian, and the persistent caucus of the "leavemethehellaloneandgetthatclipboardouttamyface"... all of us are the product of our inner selves. And thus all writing is suspect on those grounds alone.
Everyone posting here is a Writer in some regard. Some of us write for money, some of us for something to do, and some to attempt to inculcate the love of the written word in others... most of us all of the above at one time or another. But we are Writers. And we all know that what I just said is true. Whether a reporter is embedded and subsequently agrees to a certain degree of censorship, or freelances out of the greenzone and relies on the local stringers for photos and story leads... none of it is beyond reproach. And I reject out of hand that the Iraqi's who die to get the story out are somehow less than us, less than reporters. The Committee to Protect Journalists released their findings for 2007 today and of the 32 journalists who died in Iraq last year, all but one were Iraqi. I don't think that reduces the story they died to tell, I think it underscores it.
Regardless of all that, no one of them is telling the whole story. Because they cannot. No more than Ernie Pyle told the whole story of WWII. He (and they) could only tell the story in front of him, the stories of the men around him.
Great as he was, our understanding of the second world war doesn't from Pyle, nor any other one journalist. It came then and as historians it comes to us now from an amalgam of sources. Our grandmothers pieced together redacted letters home and the radio broadcasts of Edward R Murrow's stories from the Blitz, Pyle's newspaper stories from Algiers, Earnest Hemingway's posts in Collier's and Margaret Bourke-White's piercing lens... and a host of others you've never even heard of. All of them gave us pieces and from that we assembled our view of the war then as now. Small parts of the greater puzzle.
And just as our grandparents did then, we have to assemble all of the pieces that are put at our disposal - pieces expressing doubt, pieces of jingoistic fervor, pieces of propaganda from the reigning administration and from that we must assemble the best image of the overall campaign as we can. Looking at once source for anything and saying "This is the way it is" is logically unsupportable. It's what keeps these fights going and keeps us distracted from the real play within the play.
Do I want all of my news from a single source? No. When the press is in unanimous agreement on something, or spends all their time carrying water for the Powers That Be, then that is when they stop serving their constitutional function. When the fix is in, no one wins.
I do not lack the intellect to assemble the larger picture, to find the nuance... the signal amid the noise if you will and I think that finally the American people are starting to remember how to do that too. That's why you see polling indicating changes in the American viewpoint from "by-jingo" a few years ago to the lowest point and back up to the current guarded optimism laced with a desire to see it end quickly and in our favor -- if such a thing is still possible.
The deplorable unanimity of the press in the run up to this war was nothing short of criminal. Their unwillingness to examine the claims or to question power injured their credibility beyond measure. It will take a long time to repair it, if indeed it can ever be fully recovered. That they no longer agree on a single viewpoint, or pay unthinking, unblinking lip service to a certain summary of events makes me believe more than anything that sanity has at long last reasserted itself in the international press corps.
And there's no time like the present.
Furthermore... This situation, this election, this war requires a similarly wide-angle approach. And so for that matter does the presidency of these United States. Single-issue candidacy and even single-issue advocacy isn't going to sway me one iota. And it's certainly not going to win this "Long War" everyone keeps talking about (accepting for the moment the premise which I'm not sure that I do).
Do as you will with your vote; it's your God-given right to do so, as enshrined in the constitution. But forgive me my bluntness, in my view to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else strikes me as myopic.
There have been no great presidents crafted from single-issue candidates. What if Roosevelt had been a single-issue candidate? We'd have still been embroiled in the Great Depression when Japan bombed Pearl. The economic status of this country, our indebtedness to other nations, the state of the US Dollar, the deficit, the trade imbalance, the moving of vital industries offshore... all of these things are issues of critical national security, critical national import. And by all that's reasonable, I want my candidate to have an informed opinion about them and won't vote for anyone who does not.
Our greatest tactical advantage in every conflict in which we have ever become embroiled dating back to before the Marines fought pirates in Tripoli was the juggernaut of the American economy. Do I want a president whose vision is turned solely outward to the exclusion of all else?
No thank you.
I think a wider vision is called for.
"In their eyes as they pass is not hatred, not excitement, not despair, not the tonic of their victory - there is just the simple expression of being here as though they had been here doing this forever, and nothing else."-Ernie Pyle
War Correspondent
Posts
23 comments:
Great post, Scott. Your points on journalism are well taken, and I appretiate your personal experience in the matter.
I do have a question, though, for you and anyone else who might be reading. You said, "[I]n my view to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else strikes me as myopic."
Of course, this is not the first time I've heard that same statement.
I wonder when is the last time someone hired a person to remodel a house and expected the same person to do everything. Should the plumber be the roofer? Should the guy who does the floors be the one who puts in the cabinets?
Let's extend that thought. Would you hire a plumber to cater a meal for you? How about a pastry chef to work on your car?
I suspect that the answer to most of those questions is "no", which drives to the heart of my single issue focus on electing a President. I believe--I know--that the Office of the President is practically limited in what it can acutally accomplish, whoever occupies it. As a result, I choose to focus on the things that President is Constitutionally bound to do and ask him to do them well.
Perhaps I am myopic, but what do we call people who invest so much into a single person only to discover they can deliver but a mere fraction of what was promised? In modern elections, it seems like Americans invest the ideals of an elected king in our Presidents, only to be crushed and disappointed when they cannot deliver.
In fact, my view is practical. I understand that there are many issues that directly threaten our way of life--war, economy, welfare, and others--and I do not ignore them. Instead, I understand that each issue must be dealt with by those who have the tools available to deal with them. From my view, as restricted as it may be, the President, whoever he may be, is only capable of dealing with a few of them.
By investing so much into our Presidents, we really do ignore the role of Congress and the courts. More importantly, we ignore the role of citizens and the government that belongs to them.
So, which is the worse myopia, that I want a President who does one thing well or that so many people want to abdicate responsibility to a President they seem to be intent to elect as King?
-=DLH=-
I would not hire one person to do every aspect of a remodelling job. I would not ask my plumber to be a roofer. But there are people called "general contractors" or "construction foremen" whose job it is to make sure all of the proper people are hired and stay on schedule and on budget. That role is far more analogous to the Presidency.
Of course we don't elect a President to do everything, but he or she sure as hell needs to understand at least a little bit about everything or have good general judgment to manage the rest of the crew.
Denny, you conintually say that the President is hired to "do" foreign policy. Not so. He is to oversee it, but the State Department and the Pentagon and their various offices are the doers. And they can't accomplish much if the country is insolvent.
The reason for the rest of what we load onto the President has to do with the conflation of his role as party leader with his role as President. As party leader he can urge the members of his party to put forth his agenda. That's where the rest of it -- along with his veto power -- comes in. Unfortunately, the current President thinks he is a King and can do as he pleases. He's wrong and we shouldn't let him or any other President think it. On this, I am confident you agree.
Ah, good, the general contractor. So, if we hire a general contractor to remodel the kitchen, are we going to be happy if he puts carpet in the bedroom and repairs the roof? I understand that sometimes we hire contractors to build the whole house, but the last time I checked, this house has long since been built. What it needs now is maintenance.
So, let's cut to the chase with our theoretical master-of-none President. Now we're electing him because we hope he surrounds himself with people who know what they're doing? That seems like a really dangerous proposition indeed.
But, I'll try to keep on task. What is it that we're expecting the President to do with, say, the economy? What can a President even do to the economy? What policy, plan, or mandate does the President have available to add one more job or help one more person out of poverty?
As I see it, said President has access to two, one legal and one Constitutional. I'm curious what everyone thinks they are. I'm curious if anyone can provide me a clear example of anything a President has done in the modern era that has had a positive impact on the economy.
The problem here is that we're mixing the power of the President with the powers of the Congress and the courts and, more tragically, the power of the people. Hence the reason we now have political candidates suggesting that it is within the purview of the government to garnish peoples' wages to force them to pay for healthcare. Do the rest of you really want a President with that power? I do not.
As Scott said, however, "Do as you will with your vote; it's your God-given right to do so, as enshrined in the constitution." My only exhort is that you are sure what you are asking for before you ask for it.
-=DLH=-
I can’t help but think that the question you really want answered is narrower than your wording might imply. From your viewpoint, the role of the president is as the civilian leader of the military and representative at assorted conferences… full stop. So what I actually hear you ask is “What president has violated my view of the powers of the presidency to lead the military and propose treaties and managed to make an omelet despite?”
I find fault with the central premise of your question because – by my estimation - your view of the presidency is fundamentally flawed specifically in terms of its scope and the precedence of powers. The first power of the presidency mentioned in article II, section 1 of the US Constitution is not the power to make war, it is the power to lead. Specifically, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
The executive branch is not two guys in a rowboat. It’s one guy at the wheel of a flagship, around him a fleet of ships crewed by millions and overseen by two other admirals with powers equal to his own in overlapping spheres of influence. Nevertheless, he is the nominal head of this fleet. The one who sets the direction of the courts and - by constitutional mandagte - recommends such legislation as is necessary in annual addresses to the congress.
He is the executive, he sets the direction and we follow or not as befits our chaotic and often befuddled form of government. As with any admiral, the president isn’t expected to tote the bales and haul the lines and why would you want him to. He is expected to know how these tasks are done so that he may execute his office faithfully, fully, and well.
The president doesn’t just command the military. He manages the country in co-equal balance with the congress... or so it was intended.
He is supposed to be the executive, the country's manager. Through the various agencies under his command, he oversees the economy (labor, commerce, treasury, federal reserve), the Interior (HHS, education, agriculture, interior), as well as military and foriegn relations, on TOP of being the one to whom responsibility for enforcement of the laws is given. How can his decisions affect spheres outside the narrow purview you have delineated? How can he not?
You can wish these things away, but it won't make the demands on the man who we elect any less. And we can only do harm by not choosing someone who is not ready and equal to the task(s) before him... or her.
Scott, you are absolutely correct when you identify that my question is narrow and that my view of the Presidency is exactly what you say it is.
In fact, I do not believe that I need a CEO or an admiral to tell me what to do. That position is fundamental to the principles of the libertarian republic I believe in. I don't want a manager because I am not an employee. In fact, the relationship is quite the opposite.
What I want is a President, really an entire government, who will do the things that are too big for me, or each of us as individuals, to do ourselves, within the constraints of the Constitution, with _all_ other powers and authorities reserved for the states and the people.
If I truly believe this view, I cannot in good conscience vote for any candidate who stands for anything else. Unfortunately, such a candidate did not run for this election, so I am left with voting for a candidate that represents what I see as the most pressing issue of our time.
I think what has happened in the United States, really since the beginning of the Civil War, is that we have forgotten our identity as individuals as we have succumbed to the notion of being Americans before being ourselves. We succumbed to the collectivist notion that national identity is greater than individualism. Don't get me wrong, I am proud to be an American, but I hold this pride because I believe the republic can be salvaged, not because I am happy with how it is now.
This idea is not some blind appeal to rampant capitalism, nor is it the irresponsible blatherings of modern Libertarians, rather it is the result of a long time spent trying to fathom what the Founding Fathers intended when they created a form of government determined to make the individual free of the government.
Again, I restate that I believe that the war, the economy, social welfare, healthcare, and the many issues like them are important and need to be addressed. Where I seem to differ with at least everyone who has posted here so far is how I think those issues should be addressed. I do not think that the power to resolve those issues should be vested in the President. Really, I think most of those issues are not even ones for the federal government.
I did not come to these conclusions haphazardly, impulsively, or irrationally. Instead, I came to them by realizing what happens when we continue to invest more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. The result, to date, is Presidential candidates who believe that garnishing people's wages is an acceptable intrusion of the federal government into an individual's life. When does that intrusion, once allowed, end? If history is any guide, it ends in imperium.
-=DLH=-
I agree that no one person (or entity) can tell the entire story, and that when all the press agrees, no one wins.
So, why does the majority of Americans take it on face value that the main-stream media is serving the best interests of the public? That CNN, FOX, ABC, etc. *want* their viewers to know what is going on and what the truth is? If anyone is myopic, we have a suitable candidate in the MSM - body counts, bombs and smoke, murders, whatever it may be, it's sure not positive the vast majority of the time. I have to search out news of the positive, but negativity is all around, 24/7.
Denny,
A famous libertarian once said that he wants the government to be "small enough to drown in the bathtub." I forget who said it because I wasn't familiar with the man to begin with and don't agree with him enough to search him out. But the phrase stuck in my head all the same.
By now it is readily apparent to any observer that our views are fundamentally different, and one might say incompatible. That is fine with me. I respect your intellect - as I believe you already know by now - and as such your ability to make a reasoned assessment. Truth is, there is no solution to this argument. It dates back to the founding fathers and will continue long after we are gone. The executive role is encoded in the first sentence of the executive powers act. You may not want a manager, or a ceo, or an admiral or a plumber or a contractor or whatever metaphor we decide to use, but that doesn't mean you're not going to get one. And thus it is encumbent upon us to chose the best among those who are standing for election, and to chose them not based upon the job as we wish it was, but upon their qualifications for the job as it is.
The ceo role was elaborated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers and is - in fact - often referred to as the 'Hamiltonian' theory of the executive. Not to be confused or conflated - as it often is - with the so-called 'unitary executive" (cum-king). But regardless of how you feel about the Federalist Papers, the words are there and this is what they mean and how government is practiced.
How you propose to change that is a matter I should like to very much to hear.
All the same - I still fail to see how voting for a man to fulfill the job as you *want* it to be will help us find someone who can do the job as it is.
Keba... I don't know what to say.
I don't know anyone who believes the media is preaching gospel-truth. If those people are still out there... they simply haven't been paying attention for the last decade or so.
It's worth noting (or not) that one of the most famous quotes in Journalism is the editor who said "No one would read an article headlined 'Two-Hundred Planes Land Safely at LaGuardia'"
Our journalism is the reflection of the country that spawned it moreso than our attitudes are the reflection of it. People bitch & moan about the sex scandals and corruption stories, but newspaper sales triple when the stories are featured. We are spinning hemp for the rope they're hanging us with and the FCC is building the scaffold by allowing more and more media consolidation until there aren't anymore loan voices of dissent except on the internet... and who listens to those people?
That's why I've stopped watching television altogether. I read newspapers and internet sources foreign and domestic daily and listen to the radio.
Denny said, "Unfortunately, such a candidate did not run for this election . . . ."
Two words: Ron Paul.
Ron Paul believes, as you do, that the powers of the Presidency are limited in scope. Of course, he doesn't agree with you that we need to be in a state of constant war -- sorry, that was cheap. You don't believe that either.
I really like that you want to align your actions with your beliefs. That isn't a universally "good" thing -- the fundamentalist Islamists you fear so much do the same thing -- but your heart and mind are in the right place: do what's good for our republic.
What's happening here, in this space, is what should happen on the national stage: rational, respectful debate before finally tallying the votes.
Scott makes some good points about what actually happens. Denny, you seem to have a desire to be practical about the balance between the academic and the real. I think you are largely accomplishing that with your views. But where you are practical in some areas, your argument -- as Scott points out -- isn't consistently practical in others.
Consider one more factor. Regardless of the actual powers of the President or how the government should be run, the Presidential election -- which wrongly gets too much focus when local elections are where the power should rest -- is a massive forum that engages the whole country in a way that no local election does. The platform these candidates have, regardless of their actual power to keep the promises they make, is one that allows multiple issues to be debated openly. A President's views about a wide array of issues do matter because, as practiced, his or her election is a proxy for or defacto "poll" of the will of the American people.
Academically speaking, if we choose a candidate based on one issue alone, we've doomed the country to a limited view. Practically speaking, we're all going to weigh the issues at hand in our own fashion. Your fashion is to put 100% of your weight on one issue. Though the results are quite different, your process isn't any different than mine or anyone else's that has a vote.
Here's hoping that our collective wisdom is sufficient to guide us through the troubled waters in which we find ourselves.
So, Scott (and David, too, I guess), not to put too fine a point on it: for whom are you going to vote, and why?
Ultimately, you only have one vote. While there may be a wide range of issues at stake, you only have one vote to cast. So, to perhaps over-simplify, since none of the candidates (I assume) represents your views perfectly, you have to decide which issue(s) are most important you and which ones you're going to ignore or de-prioritize so that you can make a single, binary choice between, basically, two people.
Which, as much as it may irritate you, makes your choice (and choosing process) not that much different than Denny's: Decide what's most important, pick the candidate that best mirrors your version of the "right" way to handle said item(s), and vote accordingly.
The only difference -- and I'd bet that at the end of the day it's not as much of a difference as you'd like it to be -- is that he thinks his item is clearly singular, and you think yours are clearly plural.
(sorry for the drive-by nature of this comment)
C
David, actually my first choice for President would have been Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich represents quite a lot of what I believe and stand for, both in his views of government and in his views of liberty.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a quack. The fact that the man is still running is more of an irritattion than anything else. Every campaign has to have an extremist, and Paul and Kusinich were for this one.
I'm actually very comfortable with my method for making my choice and with the candidate I chose as a result. Whether or not the national "debate" chooses to be far broader is actually irrelivant to me.
This last statement is the key and core of libertarianism. I do not have to think like anyone else thinks or concede their points simply because they've all chosen to make them. Instead, I can rest comfortably in my own conviction until someone presents me with a compelling reason to change my mind. Put another way, I don't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks unless they can prove their point with facts. So far, that hasn't happened.
The beautiful part of our republic is that it doesn't care what I think either as an individual. As you rightly point out, the President is not elected by an individual, but by the collective will of millions of individuals, each with their own views, choices, and ideals. I pray that the distillation of the public will provides us with the right person for the job. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.
At the core of this beauty is that I don't have to change my mind or listen to anyone else if I choose not to. Perhaps I will not be happy with the collective decision, but I have the liberty to disagree and to speak out as I choose. This is exactly the conflict a republic needs in order to remain dynamic. If we all agreed, we would no longer be individual or free.
So, the bottom line is that--I'm using artificially strong language here--I reject yours and Scott's exhortation to compromise what I believe in order to achieve some sort of artificial consensus. Consensus will be achieved whether only I hold my position or whether millions do. The consensus benefits from my principle because it is my principle that makes it alive.
-=DLH=-
Scott, and whoever else may be listening in... :)
You may not know them, but I do (and I work with/for them at times). The depth of their knowledge is limited to what the local fishwrap newspaper has been writing, what the local (and maybe national) news talking head says at 5, 6 and 11, combined with what they hear at the water cooler in snatches of conversation. Maybe they don't believe it to be "gospel-truth" (your words, not mine), but they sure don't try very hard to change the words they heard from the tv/paper/radio.
With the conversations I have had, if you get off the talking points, the conversation ends, or ends up with them repeating themselves, only louder. No thinking, no processing of information, just regurgitation of the party line.
My desk is in the same office as the political science folks, all of whom are liberals (at least all that talk about politics in the office). It's a freakin' broken record in there any more, just at varying volumes during the day.
We all travel in many circles of influence. Those in your circles must do more on a regular basis than watch American Idle (no, that's not a mis-spelling...) and get their news from the local sources. In at least one of my circles, that's the way it is.
As for me, I don't watch tv either (don't even own one, actually) - I get my news from the internet and various radio channels.
Denny,
"I'm actually very comfortable with my method for making my choice and with the candidate I chose as a result."
That's clear in the fact that you've exhibited zero evidence of doubt. This is, in fact, what makes me tend to distrust your point of view.
"Put another way, I don't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks unless they can prove their point with facts. So far, that hasn't happened."
Facts are great; we need them. However, facts need interpretation. Furthermore, you omit any mention of logic in your assessment of what can make you take someone else's point of view into consideration. We might agree on facts, but come to different conclusions about them. Without a willingness to consider someone else's logic, your defiance becomes mere obstinance. That sounds harsh. I'll stand by it, but I'll also allow for the possibility that you do, in fact, consider logic in the equation and just didn't mention it in your post because, well, because we forget to and can't always say everything we might actually mean to say.
"Perhaps I will not be happy with the collective decision, but I have the liberty to disagree and to speak out as I choose. This is exactly the conflict a republic needs in order to remain dynamic."
I agree with this.
"I reject yours and Scott's exhortation to compromise what I believe in order to achieve some sort of artificial consensus."
Perhaps it's a matter of the artificially strong language, but I hope you don't think I'm trying to get you to compromise your beliefs. I've been arguing with you, presenting a different set of beliefs for you to consider, and trying to learn from you what you think, why, and make my own assessment of what you have done with the information you've shared.
I'm not privvy to all that you know (or think you know) so I can't say for sure, but from what I do know I believe you have drawn the wrong (or maybe they're just less effective?) conclusions.
If I change your mind -- if that's really possible -- I would not want to accomplish it in any other way than what you suggest. As long as you are willing to subject yourself to the system of government we have established and accept the results, you can be as confident, obstinate, open-minded, closed-minded, or whatever that you want to be.
I'm not, and I assume Scott is not, attacking you. I merely disagree with your conclusions.
And for what it's worth, this has been a blast. I am so glad you made your initial post. It has breathed life into the blog.
I can sense frustration in some of the responses (not just yours) here and I have felt it myself. However, I keep coming back to one undeniable point: we agree that we want what's best for the country. Similarly, we (you and I) share, it seems, a number of principles in common and an appreciation for the intended style of government this country has.
To listen to the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world, you'd think that people like us who disagree are actually members of different countries that have only the destruction of one another at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We can bicker and argue (in the best sense of that word) on this blog all the live long day. I will be happy to do so because you present interesting ideas and keep coming back for more. And despite all that (and in some cases because of it) when the terrorists show up in your yard, I hope I know about it so I can stand next to you and help you kick their asses. Then we can have a cold beer over their dead bodies and continue the debate.
God Bless America!
David,
Obstinate, perhaps, or just really, really certain. Sometimes that's a fine line.
For any of us to explain the logic of how we make such decisions would take a lifetime to describe. By definition, each of us appeals to the body of experience that brought us to where we are in order to reach such conclusions. Someday, I hope to explain my own logic--experience?--but I doubt a weblog is the fair place to accomplish that task.
I am glad, however, to have engaged in the debate. I do not doubt your sincerity or anyone else's. We may disagree with interpretations and conclusions, but I suspect this is exactly the kind of debate that the Founding Fathers wanted citizens to have. In fact, I have always wanted to be a part of something like Franklin's Junto, and I think this weblog, to date, has come closer to that end than anything I have ever done.
Inevitably, this conversation will contribute to all of our future thinking and logic. My great curiosity is what form that contribution will take.
I agree with you, David, that we all have the same intentions at heart. Because of that, whatever each of us may think, I am sure the republic will survive. For that, I am eternally thankful.
I hope that this "fire in the belly" we've all found carries on to other and, perhaps, less contentious things. Open, intelligent discussion is the hallmark of intelligent people, and I for one cannot get enough of it.
Hear, hear, God bless America.
-=DLH=-
"Obstinate, perhaps, or just really, really certain. Sometimes that's a fine line."
In your defense (as if you needed it), being certain can always appear to be obstinancy to someone who isn't convinced.
Here's what Webster's has to say about that word:
1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion (obstinate resistance to change)
2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed
You are definitely number 2 (sorry, I had to phrase it that way for comedic effect), but I don't know if you fit the first definition. I prefer to think I just haven't convinced you yet.
:)
Chris,
Just so you don't think I'm dodging your question (you would never think that, would you?) my answer is I haven't decided yet.
I like Ron Paul's adherence to the Constitution, and I liked Chris Dodd's dedication to fighting telecom immunity for their illegal spying. Dodd is already out, though, and Paul will most likely be out by our primary and really doesn't have a chance in any case.
I don't dislike McCain. In fact, I kind of find it funny that Denny and I have been wailing on each other because we might end up voting for the same guy and because Denny was so much more likely to get heat from his right than from his left. The arch-conservative HATE McCain for reasons that surpass my understanding.
I don't like Mitt Romney, can't articulate why, but I respect him for how much of his own money he's willing to put into the race. Huckabee is, as Denny said of Paul, a quack. We don't need another religious reactionary in the White House.
Among the remaining Dems, I like Obama's energy and outsider approach; I think we need that, but I'm concerned about his experience. Clinton has the experience, but she may be too insider Washington for my tastes.
So I don't have a clear favorite, though if you pushed me to pull the lever right now, I'd probably go for Ron Paul, thus confirming for Denny that I'm totally insane and can't be reasoned with.
I'd do that because I think Paul would actually do what a President was supposed to do. I find him open and honest and I think any harm he might cause would be limited by Congress actually getting to do its job.
I agree with Denny, though, that one term or even one Presidency can't completely reverse the deep wrong in how our government actually operates. But maybe Paul could start to put the Executive on the right track.
Scott, I missed your comment in the shuffle today. Sorry about that.
At any rate, I think that the problem with the federalist vs. anti-federalist debate is that we basically stopped having it after the Civil War. Before the mid-1850s, the federalist question was not so cut and dried, but the fact that the nation went to war over it effectively ended the debate. The result has been unchecked federal expansion since then.
How to fix it? Flippantly, I can say by returning the federal government to its 30 or so--apparently Constitutional scholars sharply disagree on this number--powers given to it in the Constitution.
Practically, I understand there needs to be a clearer answer. My top three answers, then would be to pass the Enumerated Powers Act (notice that the originator of this bill is from Arizona), restructure the tax code in a way that is fair to everyone, and privatize social welfare so that the government cannot touch the money.
I think what these three things would do is force the Congress especially to return to a Constitutional framework when dealing with legislation and spending, which I think would reduce both spending and unconstitutional regulation, thereby reducing the size, scope, and authority of the federal government over individuals.
Of course, these actions are just the first of a list of actions that would be required to return the federal government to a managable state, but I would bet those three take a hundred years to happen if the current political climate continues.
-=DLH=-
Denny -- thanks for your three practical steps. I've never seen anything more practical than "the government has too much control! Keep its hands off!!" These are three very good starts.
David -- What Would Ron Paul Do? What say to those three items? What else would he do (or not)? Would he actually agree with Denny? I also think it's funny that a lot of ink has been spilled because Denny wrote a post saying he would vote for the guy that you think you might end up voting for. But the devil is always in the details; in this case, WHY would that vote be cast? GOod stuff...
Chris,
Denny's post was a good one, actually. He presented a cogent, consistent argument for his candidate. I don't really know what his intent was. After all, sometimes a blog post is just to blow off steam (like my I'm Offended post), but the best ones, I think, try to make a point and changes minds.
I think that his limited reason is not only not helpful to our country, but it is limiting to any argument for McCain. If he runs on just this one issue, he will be defeated. So, you see, I'm academic AND practical.
As to your questions about Ron Paul, I'll let him answer: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
From comments I've heard him make on CSPAN during one of his campaign stops, it's clear that he, too, has a practical approach. He knows he can't just wave his magic wand and change the country. He even knows that some of his more academic beliefs about the Constitution won't be able to be practically applied in the course of his Presidency.
His real value as I see it is as a model for how a President should use his powers and the limits on them.
Personally, I'm less adamant about a smaller government than either Ron Paul, Denny, or you. I'm a big fan of the original intent, but I also recognize the changes in our nation since the founding that actually require a more vigorous federal government than our founders envisioned. Even with my more expansive view, however, I can see the need to trim excesses from our current government approach.
I think I'll be able to walk reasonably far down the road with you radical fellows, though. :)
I think it's really exciting that you will (likely) be voting Republican with me next month.
BTW, I was asking my Ron Paul questions just so I could type the phrase "What Would Ron Paul Do?"
Because I've asked "What Would Denny Do?" in the past, and gotten burned...
And, I think McCain will run on more than that one issue. That might be the clincher for Denny, but not (obviously) for everyone who votes.
Good thing he has a whole toolbox full of issues on which to run.
Actually, the Federalist debate was still in full swing when FDR used Hamilton to argue for a broadening of presidential authority so he could ride herd over the bureaucracy created by the New Deal and then rolled back under Truman and the Hoover Commission. And so it ebbs and flows...
Anyway, the debate goes beyond the states' rights issues that overtook the adherents of the various sides and underlay the Civil War. It's alive and well in the Bush Administration's arguments for broader executive power and privilege and is even used to spackle the cracks in the unitary executive arguments (though that certainly goes beyond the scope of Hamilton's arguments).
I'd say that the underlying national debate on this is anything but dead. It's simply transformed into something else.
Oh! And incidentally... it occurred to me this morning over my morning cuppa that if you really want to narrow the scope of presidential powers... then the logical step would be to chose the candidate least likely to walk in with enough markers in his (or her) pocket to enable them to hang on to the extra powers that have been duct-taped to the office since... since whenever.
So it occurs to me that in a very real - and highly mercenary fashion - a vote for Obama would probably be a vote for a reduction in the presidential portfolio. Whether he wanted it to be so or not... there's no way a newb like him can hang onto that much power without the kind of political muscle that a junior senator simply doesn't have the ability to muster.
Scott, you are right that there was still a debate during the FDR administration, but I think that the primary debate over the nature of federalism had long since been lost.
With FDR and with Bush, we're no longer debating what belongs to citizens, states, and the federal government, but which part of the federal government controls what (see Clinton's comments about wage garnishment). From the statements of most politicians since at least the 1920s, the federal government sees no real bounds to its power. In fact, most politicians invoke the Founding Fathers as a ruse to make their anti-constitutional acts seem more Constitutional.
In a way, I agree that electing someone like Obama would greatly decrease the power of the executive, but only by increasing the power of the equally irresponsible Congress (note that they only bloated the already bad tax rebate bill by like $25 billion).
If we really wanted to reduce the federal government to a managable size in dramatic and catastrophic fashion, we'd vote for someone like Paul or Nader. With one of them as president, most of the government would get noting done.
Post a Comment