The Principles of the Past

In celebrating Independence Day, E.J. Dionne questions the desire of many to base their policy choices on some notion of the "'original' intentions of the Founders." Writing in the Washington Post, he argues that too many people (presumably conservatives) rely upon their modern understanding of history, as a snapshot, to argue for certain policies, rather than acting as "we the people" best see fit today. He criticizes American historicism by writing:

[I]t is dangerous to turn the Founders into quasi-religious prophets who produced a text more like the Bible or the Talmud. It’s neither. It is a governing document that was the product of compromises and arguments....

We do a disservice to ourselves and the Founders alike if we take them out of history and demand that they settle arguments that we ought to settle on our own.

The Founders, after all, were not timid men bound by the past. They did something bold and adventurous. In creating a novel form of government, they were thinking and acting anew.

While Dionne eventually goes too far by essentially stripping the Constitution of any real meaning and advocating for an expansive government than can do anything the people (one can only assume he means a crude mass of majoritarian democracy) want, he does raise a valid point about the Right's overemphasis of a historical moment and the great men that shaped the country at that time. Indeed, while it is necessary to learn from history, it is not the past but the principles of the proper role of government that we must rely upon to shape policy.

The problems with an overly heavy reliance on the Founders' "vision" are manifold. First, it is unthinking. On a basic level, it ignores the nuances of policy debates and circumstances during the founding of our country. As any basic reading of the founding of the United States will reveal, many of the Founders had different beliefs. However, on a deeper level, such backward-looking reliance creates a situation where blanket ideas are deified without any understanding of why they are appropriate or how they properly function. This leaves proponents of constitutionalism stultified, unable to defend their perspectives with anything but the simplistic, "This is what the Founders established for us."

A related problem, is that this perspective handicaps the propagation of a constitutionalist ideology. There is minimal debate in public circles about the proper role of government. The Left has defined, as Dionne unquestionably advocates, a activist model of government as the solution-finder extraordinaire. Many on the Right have an enfeebled response of "small government because the Founders said so"—an argument that, as popular discourse shows, carries little sway.

Furthermore, the reliance on the historical argument for limited government has crowded-out the intellectual and philosophical one. Not only does a historical justification fly against the impetus behind the founding of this country, which was forward looking, but it severely encumbers the more proper, strong, and justifiable arguments. This often prevents the Right from meaningfully presenting solutions to very modern problems (whether in the government or within other, often waning, institutions), a situation that diminishes the force of the Right's arguments.

This can lead to a number of dead ends for proponents of limited government. In one regard it can devolve into a fight, relegated to the historians and irrelevant to most Americans, over history. Worse it can create a perception of a divide between the "thinking intellectuals" who are forward-looking and the reactionaries who do not want to address modern problems. Whether this classification is fair or not is irrelevant—it is unfortunately a powerful mainstream belief. (Why are the halls of higher learning, media, and many youth so pulled by the progressive ideology?) By de-intellectualizing the founding principles of the United States, the Right has allowed the progressive ideology, with its concomitant view of an expansive role of government, to dominate the realm of solutions.

Such an argument does mean dismissing the past. There are many lessons to be learned from history. The Founders clearly designed a great system and helped elucidate a number of profound principles that form the basis of our government. But they, knowingly, were unable to foresee everything that the future could hold. Instead, as the Founders themselves did, the Right must guide its policies on principles. It must reinvigorate the intellectual arguments that underpin classical liberalism (eg. the political philosophy of modern conservatives). While these principles may have historical roots, they are not themselves history but are timeless. The forward-looking application of the principles of limited constitutional government can serve as a worthy challenge to the progressive ideology that has become dominant, thus not only helping to shape the form and nature of our government but winning support from swathes of society that have been deemed lost.

Is the Far-Left Trying to Rewrite the Constitution?

Some on the far left are urging Obama to disregard his own debt ceiling deal in favor of using the "nuclear option" to unilaterally raise the debt limit.  This argument, raised by a number of House Democrats, relies upon a weak interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, which states:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The claim seizes upon the lines "[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned" dubiously asserting that this signifies the constitution allows the president to unilaterally issue debt.  However, the argument is so full of holes that even the administration has categorically rejected it.  Obama stated, “I have talked to my lawyers...  They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”  

The truth is that this part of fourteenth amendment, which was written in the midst of the Civil War, was drawn up to prevent Congress or the president from repudiating existing debts. This was rooted in the fear that after reunification with the South, former Confederate legislators would try to wipe out Union debt.  Its aim was to ensure that a congress could not backtrack on the promises of previous congresses, undoing commitments made to debtors and thus injuring the debtors and the United States.  The amendment in no way authorized the president to unconditionally incur new debt and certainly did not question the primacy of Congress’s responsibility to issue debt or the constitutionality of a debt limit.  Stanford's Michael McConnell sums up the constitutional law nicely.

Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a back-door method for the Administration to borrow more money without congressional authorization. For Congress to limit the amount of the debt does not “question” the “validity” of the debt that has been “authorized by law.” At most, it means that paying the public debts and pension obligations of the United States, as they become due, has priority over all other spending. 

The leftist perspective is merely an attempt to twist the constitution to prevent needed fiscal reforms.  Not only is it unconstitutional for Congress to abdicate this responsibility - Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that only "[t]he Congress shall have Power... To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" - but, as argued elsewhere, such an interpretation would place the United States in dire straits, removing a huge check on rampant expenditure.

Cain Repents

Herman Cain has apologized for his anti-Muslim comments.  The GOP presidential candidate had previously claimed that communities had the right to prohibit Muslims from worshiping within the community.  As was argued last week here at ANR, Cain's commentary and understanding of the constitution was not only wrong but "unfortunately damaging to legitimate Republican candidates who have been unfairly linked to this Islamophobic mentality".

Fortunately, Cain has seemingly received the message after meeting with a Virginia-based Muslim group.  Cain released a statement saying:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends.... I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully.

Thankfully, his Muslim counterparts believe that his change of heart is sincere.  Leaders from the Muslim group say that Cain was able to clear up some of the misinformation that had been fed to him, enabling Cain to draw fruitful parallels between the plight of Muslim-Americans today and that of African-Americans during Cain's childhood.  This was a linkage Cain had refused to making in his original discussion with Fox New's Chris Wallace.

It is laudable that he realized the errors in his thinking and comments - hopefully it will stick.  America is far too torn by divisiveness for this type of behavior to continue.  Furthermore, Republicans have far too much to accomplish in reforming this country to be distracted by demagoguery that is not only hurtful but far removed from the realm of serious issues.

The Escape Clause

In light of today’s meeting between congressional leaders and the White House over the debt ceiling and entitlement cuts, two Republican senators have voiced strong support for a balanced budget amendment. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) state that:

A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is imperative if we are to provide continuity of fiscal responsibility, and ensure we never return to the recklessness of the past and present. It's time Congress passed the amendment and gave the states—and "We the People"—their say.

The senators’ argument not only has wide support amongst the base and Republican politicians; all 47 GOP senators have endorsed such an amendment; but is sound and well articulated. The irresponsibility of continuous spending beyond our means is ruinous for the economic future of the United States. As Snowe and DeMint argue, “the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their [fiscal] responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”

However while the merits of such an amendment are clear to nearly all on the right and the more sensible on the left, there is at least one potential drawback that needs to be considered in the language of any acceptable proposal. While in nearly all instances there really is no reason to maintain an imbalanced budget, there are a few possible exceptions to the rule. Any balanced budget amendment must include an escape clause in order to prevent hamstringing future leaders (or daresay lead to a repeal of this amendment).

The most obvious exception is the case of major war or national catastrophe. It would be extremely difficult for any country to wage a large scale war, like WWI or WWII, without resorting to debt. Not only would such a restriction be impractical, but it would arguably be immoral to prevent our leaders from taking necessary measures to protect the country.

Concomitantly, there is an argument to be made that the costs of such a war (WWIII) should be spread over multiple years, if not multiple generations. After all, the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII were not just for the benefit of their generation but their progeny as well. It may be impossible for future generations to shoulder past sacrifices in terms of lives; however, it is possible to spread the financial costs. Utilization of debt is a prime tool to balance the costs of such conflicts over multiple years and generations.

Obviously, such instances are exceptionally rare and thus the use of an “escape clause” would only be warranted under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the point remains that debt or even a deficit is not always a bad thing. In certain other instances such as significant national projects (how to define the worthy ones is a tough issue) and severe economic decline, deficit spending might have beneficial uses. Just like the responsible use of debt by the individual – a homeowner who takes on a mortgage or a student who takes out loans to pay for college – there are instances where government debt is acceptable, even beneficial.

Debt isn’t intrinsically bad. The excessive abuse of it is the problem. Funding programs (and entitlements) that the government should not even be involved in is bad. The current mentality of spending more than we produce on a yearly basis even goes beyond the Keynesian economics it purports to be based on (Keynes argued for deficit spending during economic downturns with surpluses in upturns, not deficit spending every year). Such a mentality needs to be eradicated and the balanced budget amendment is a fabulous way to do so. Politicians should just be careful that in their haste to solve a serious problem they don’t create a new one by failing to consider the potential benefits of debt. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on the America

Hopefully, today’s release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, will finally quiet the Birther movement. The Birthers – a rabble that questions Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, due to doubts about his birthplace – have been a political nightmare for Republicans and ultimately America for the past two years.

The truth is that the release of the long-form certificate was not necessary. It has been abundantly clear, for some time now, that the Birther claims were unfounded. As Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) said in response to today’s release, “This has long been a settled issue.”  What is most upsetting, however, is that this matter has reached such a crescendo that it has distracted the nation from a host of very serious problems.

Politically, the Birther movement has, at best, gotten Obama’s opponents nowhere. However in all likelihood, it has actually caused damage to the Republican Party and the anti-Obama agenda. For many Republicans, centrists, and others, the movement only serves as a marker of the eccentricity, anger, and irresponsibility of the Right. It thus drives people away from the Republican brand, making the election of Republicans more difficult, and hence injuring the ability of the Right to enact responsible policies. Furthermore, in a guilt-by-association manner, it can tarnish the very sensible ideas that are rooted in conservative ideology.

If one takes a moment to think of the politics of the issue, it becomes abundantly clear how politically unwinnable the argument was (or is for those who inevitably will find cause to dismiss this latest proof of Obama’s citizenship). First of all, there has been no credible evidence to suggest that Obama was not born in the United States. As is now hopefully even clearer, there has, in fact, been much evidence indicating the contrary. Obama previously released a short-form birth certificate and numerous officials have affirmed the veracity of his Hawaiian birth. The Birther argument had nowhere to go. Impeachment was an illogical and a politically-impossible outcome, one that would clearly have torn the country apart.

Second, even if one assumes that the Birthers were correct and an impeachment trial not only occurred, but was successful in removing the president, where would America be left? With Joe Biden as president (not to mention with even deeper polarization of the political landscape). None of the underlying problems that the right has with Obama would be miraculously cured. While Biden would undoubtedly have some different policies than Obama, the fundamentals would remain. Those who wish to see America’s problems solved and who believe that the Democrats’ agenda cannot achieve this, would be no closer to their real goal.

The point is that the entire argument fails to solve, or even address, the actual issues that are facing this country. This is not meant to imply that the narrow constitutional issue of Obama’s eligibility is not important – it is. However, with the evidence that existed prior to today wholly pointing in one direction (now with hopefully the final nail in the coffin), the Birthers only served as a distraction from pressing issues like the economy and as a great prop for the Democrats to marginalize the Republicans with.

Ad hominem attacks like this should have no place in American politics (of course they are only ad hominem when, as in this instance, there was clearly no substance to the argument). Instead, arguments need to be made to refute the foolish policies of the administration and offer meaningful alternatives. Vitriol and fight need to be turned into discourse and debate.

If Republicans and conservatives want to be viewed with any seriousness and hope to be elected into the positions to right the course of this country, they must focus on solutions to the real problems we face. Fortunately, most mainstream Republican leaders have long-ago distanced themselves from the rhetoric of the Birthers. Nevertheless, the vocalized minority has all but drowned out rational discussion.  As Obama said in a statement after the release,

We’ve got some enormous challenges out there…. We’re going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions…. And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates… but we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other…. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.

America – both left and right – has a duty to move past these petty squabbles, take some personal responsibility, and fix our broken system, before it is too late.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Note:  To be fair, the Birthers are by far not the only group that has served to cause distraction from the real issues.  All across America, different groups and individuals are failing to focus on the problems the country faces.]

On the Tea Party and Academia

In today's Wall Street Journal, the Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz wrote a profound piece regarding the prominent misunderstanding of the Tea Party.  While there are many problems with the Tea Party, the fundamentals of the movement are sound.  One of the issues, as Berkowitz alludes to, is that "the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks and creeps. And some of its favored candidates and loudest voices have made embarrassing statements and embraced reckless policies."  These individuals have become an easy target for ridicule and disregard from the Left and have prevented rational conservatives from fully endorsing the movement.

This is a shame because the principles of the Tea Party are extremely valid and worthwhile.  The concepts of limited government and individual liberty are founding tenets of the American system which have, unfortunately, been slowly eroded over the years.  The recognition of this problem and the desire to prevent the future degradation of this arrangement are these most valuable parts of the movement.

The genesis of this erosion is, however, the real issue to which Berkowitz points.  He correctly elucidates the failure of academia to instruct its students in the basic concepts of the American system.  He writes:

For the better part of two generations, the best political science departments have concentrated on equipping students with skills for performing empirical research and teaching mathematical models that purport to describe political affairs. Meanwhile, leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history.

Neither professors of political science nor of history have made a priority of instructing students in the founding principles of American constitutional government. Nor have they taught about the contest between the progressive vision and the conservative vision that has characterized American politics since Woodrow Wilson (then a political scientist at Princeton) helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the Constitution had become obsolete and hindered democratic reform.

Then there are the proliferating classes in practical ethics and moral reasoning. These expose students to hypothetical conundrums involving individuals in surreal circumstances suddenly facing life and death decisions, or present contentious public policy questions and explore the range of respectable progressive opinions for resolving them. Such exercises may sharpen students' ability to argue. They do little to teach about self-government.

Unfortunately, Berkowitz's analysis is all too correct.  The fundamental principles and ideals of political science are essentially ignored throughout the country's educational system.  Students spend more time analyzing revisionist history through modern progressive lenses than scrutinizing the development and interactions of foundational theories that have made America what it is today.

This is the root cause not only of America's wayward drift but the intense emotionalism of the Tea Party.  While many Tea Partiers viscerally understand the deterioration of the country, the deleterious anger and emotion have crowded out the focus on principles that is sorely needed.  Blame for this failure does not solely rest on the shoulders of the Tea Party, but rather on the demagogues who, in their quest for political power, drown out the intellectual voices of reason with the war drums of acrimony.  There are few leaders who have the desire or ability to push the Tea Party into a rational and productive direction.

What America and the Tea Party need are individuals who can guide the warranted, but unproductive, ire into constructive channels.  If academia continues to propagate failed leaders, other avenues should be taken to generate intellectuals schooled in the full history of America.  What is important, though, is not the means of reviving these ideas, but the end of having political and thought leaders who can cogently adduce the principles necessary to keep America on the right path.  The Tea Party's real worth will be shown if it can generate this revival.