Political Animals

 "Political Animals" is a new TV show described by its network as a "polished facade of a former first-family as they navigate the complex world of political and personal ambition." Its network, USA, would like us to think "Political Animals" is going to be the hottest summer replacement series of the year. But who is going to be watching it?

The problem isn't who it stars. Sigourney Weaver, no Meryl Streep, is still an engaging actress, nonetheless. James Wolk is a hot young leading-man type. Ciaran Hinds is always interesting. No, it isn't the actors that will cause this mini-series to fail in the ratings; it's the story line.

There are few left-progressive radio stations, and the major networks like Air America are gone, though they are prolific on the internet. But the fact is, the left, the liberals, the progressives do not pay much attention to their own programming, not compared to the right wing. 53 million people in the U.S.listen to Talk Radio. (source: Arbitron Radio Today, 2009) while 91% of talk radio programs are conservative. (source: Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio, Center for American progress and Free Press, 2007) 


More recently according to Joanne Ostrow in the denverpost.com in January of this year, "Conservative talk radio rules 90 percent of the political airwaves today."

Are the Tea Party patriots and the conservatives going to watch Sigourney portray a fictional version of Hillary  Clinton, whose  TV  husband portrays a lecher, and whose TV son portrays the first openly gay First Son in the White House? 

Do you think the left is going to watch? Why bother? They already have the real things, but they won't watch it on TV anymore than they will listen to it on the radio.

USA's producers must be strange political animals themselves, to think this is going to go over with any segment of the viewers large enough to make them do it again. It's just political theater they are engaging in, and I find left wing theatrics to be lacking in anything that would engage my mind, anyway.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

    From the New York Times (but it could have been from any publication, and I heard it from the lips of commentators before I read it):

"For the last three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods...Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans.

"Michael S. Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities. “There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it it’s always going to be an arbitrary line. [ ] But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000."

    In an economic climate of objective risk taking, the government wouldn't have a hand in it at all. It was the hand of government that created the "arbitrary line" of credit that came from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the first place. There is no entitlement to owning a home, period.

    Well, we both know that isn't a correct statement: there is an entitlement, but there is no Constitutional right, and the entitlement is un-Constitutional.

    A "retrenchment" is precisely what is needed, and it will be painful. If you don't have enough equity to stake against buying a home, any home no matter the size or cost, then you don't objectively deserve to own such a home.

    Maybe in another market on another day the equity you hold would get you what you want. But if that day isn't today, the government can't make it so without trampling on the value of the equity of every other home owner.

    And that does have a "trickle down" effect, except as we've all seen, it's not a trickle, it is a torrent.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Arab Revolutions and Popular Sovereignty

     As for the point of calling the government the "popular sovereign", Locke is relevant in today's world of Arabic/Islamic revolutions. It is unlikely that in today's world any nation, let alone an Islamic nation, is capable of going the distance as America's Founders did, by making the sovereign the individual.

     Jefferson and the other founders conceived that if the people (individuals taken as a single body politic) had the right to turn over to the government some of their rights, then the individuals were the actual sovereigns, because they cannot turn over what they do not already have. In other words, you can't give away what you don't have.

     "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

     This was carried through to the 20th century by Ayn Rand, who used many of the same phrases as the Founders:
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…

     However, this kind of thinking was rejected in the 12th century by the Muslims when they rejected the philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes) who fled to Spain to save his own life. Ibn Rusd didn't advocate individual sovereignty--it would take Americans to do that, by adapting to what Locke taught them. Locke learned from Aquinas who learned from Ibn Rushd and worked from many of the man's translations of Aristotle.

     And so, in today's world it probably isn't possible to see another America rise from the ashes of any nation whether Western, Eastern, or Middle Eastern because the idea of individual sovereignty cannot return in the U.S. until the States take back their 10th Amendment rights, after which the people can then take back their 9th Amendment rights (notwithstanding the recent controversy that the 9th is also tied directly to States' rights).

     Locke referred to "popular sovereignty". Thus, Madison wrote that "Individual rights and governmental powers were understood to be reciprocal—two sides of the same coin. As Madison wrote in a letter to Washington: 'If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured[] by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former
shall not be extended.'” http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se… page 14

     It seems however that they have been abridged, and that "the former" has been extended. Locke's "popular sovereignty" may be composed in any way the individuals of the nation wish to compose it. Turkey has had "popular sovereignty" since the Second world war and Iraq is now trying to follow in Turkey's tracks, both nations operating in the manner of the Arabs, not the way of Europeans; and of the Islamic nations now undergoing revolutions and convulsions, some may turn to Arab popular sovereignty.

     It is unlikely, however, that any of them will turn to natural rights as fully as America did. They don't understand natural rights because that is what Ibn Rushd would have led to--an Islamic Locke (or Hobbes or Rousseau). Muhammad and Allah cannot allow western individualism which "regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life."

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Health Care and the Supremacy Clause

    "State governments are pushing back reasserting federalism as the Founders intended them to do," said the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli."Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health car law is unconstitutional.....[A] legal expert said our case relied on a 'controversial reading of the Constitution.' Apparently it is controversial to apply the Constitution as it was written." [1] 

    The Constitutional Accountability Center [CAC], which believes in a 'Progressive Constitution', said in its blog that this push-back whereby States' "claims that federal health care reform violates the Constitution’s 10th Amendment and 'states’ rights' rely on an inaccurate view of the federal government as a weak, sharply limited central government."[2]
 
    To view the federal government as anything but a "sharply limited central government" may not stand up against court precedent. But precedent is not what is paramount here, because precedent is nothing but interpretations by judges who may discount original expected application, and who obviously were not there to comprehend from a first-person memory what the application was supposed to be. At the start of the current Congress, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded the House Republicans to read and understand the Federalist Papers.

    Original "meaning" refers in most recent writings to the meaning of the words as they were used when the Constitution was written; but meanings of words change. Where we say "judge", people in the 18th century often said "jurist", but to us in this century a "jurist" is taken to be someone who sits in the jury box. It isn't the meaning of the words as we understand them that is important; but that is what progressive readers of the Constitution use--their own understanding of the words as they wish them to be used today.

    "Evidence of how people used words at a certain point in time is evidence of their original public meaning, but it is not conclusive evidence, because original public use conflates both the content of a concept and its expected application."[3]

    As I wrote on April 29, Tibor Machan, referring to another author, said this is "stating conventional wisdom in the 'post-New Deal era'" of constitutional jurisprudence.  "The way this is made palatable," he wrote, "is to associate the pre-New Deal constitutional jurisprudence--substantive due process and such--with rulings that failed to overturn segregation, etc."[4]

    But there is also more going on here. "[I]n circumstances in which a national approach is necessary or preferable," the CAC continues, "the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the authority to enforce these lines of authority, preempting state law when necessary to achieve a national goal."

    Who determines when a "national approach" is "preferable" if it is not the States? It is circular thinking to say that, when the federal government was created by the States to serve them, that that servant should then decide when it may preempt the very States' laws they use under the powers of the Constitution as each State sees fit. Who determines a "national goal" if not the nation made of sovereign States who protect sovereign individuals?

    This arrogance in 'preempting state law when necessary' is created by "the 'illusion' [that] the heart of Jeffersonian government is just American individualism!....Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day...."[5]

    Indeed. Much of the Tea Party is founded or supported by libertarians and independents, who were inspired by the ideas of Ayn Rand, who echoed the Founders:

    "Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."[6]


    The Supremacy Clause says, in part that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." But it says nothing about laws made in pursuance of the Constitution being lawful just because a particular group of individuals who have gained supremacy says every law they deign to write is "necessary to achieve a national goal."

    It is only necessary to achieve their goals that they have their sights set on a 'progressive Constitution' that allows for the use of modern definitions of 18th century words, rather than 21st century interpretations of original expected application.

    But it is my opinion that the Tea Party often does little better, or none at all, or perhaps worse at time--when it decides to stand up for a perceived principle that is no principle at all. A perfect example is the call for 'smaller government' through limited budgets, rather than limited budgets through original Constitutional intent. Fiscal conservatism is not necessarily Constitutionalism.

    I have always said that the government must as large as it must be, and only as large as is Constitutional. The Framers didn't want a standing army; but those were there original "meanings"; their expected application was never to allow our nation to be exposed to the kinds of world-wide threats the kinds of which they had no conception.

    Health care, on the other hand, ought to be handled by anyone with the authority to do so, and the Supremacy Clause does not allow for the federal government to do so.

[1] April 21, 2011 lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College's Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Imprimis; April 2011 Volume 40, Number 4
[2] CAC July 27, 2010 
[3] Jack Balkin; Balkinization
[4] Tibor Machan
[5] Kelly R. Ross
[6] The Ayn Rand Lexicon; The Virtue of Selfishness

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Ron Paul and Originalism

    In recent posts I have taken the time to address the subject of Originalism within the Tea Party. Those posts have been clear, that I do not think Originalism exists in the Tea Party movement, to any degree that is catching the attention of journalists with more time and experience in the field, than I do. In Monday's post I was questioning whether Congressman Ron Paul is an Originalist.

    

    Using the various search engines to be found on the internet, I have discovered no connection yet to Paul and Originalism. Paul does, however, have some interesting ideas that harken the lamp of Originalism; it is simply that I can find no link between the philosophy and the man. Using the search engine on RonPaul.com presents you with "Apologies, but no results were found," both for 'Originalism' and 'Originalist'.

    

    The Congressman has been heard many times calling for a review of the philosophy of government. Using 'philosophy' in his fan site's search engine does bring up many instances related to his own philosophy, "with his trademark message of downsizing the federal government, bringing our troops home, balancing the budget and ending the Federal Reserve."[1] But they fall short of saying he is an Originalist. His own site has no search engine.

    There is some hope that he 'leans' toward an Originalist reading.[2] On the website maintained by his own staff, he refers to the 'war on drugs' as "that disastrous and unconstitutional war." But then instead of addressing the reasons for its un-Constitutionality, Paul begins to sound like an apologist, saying "the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse." The question then becomes, as I have pointed out in previous posts on various subjects: If the war on drugs did NOT fail to reduce the problems associated with abuse; in other words, if the war on drugs DID reduce such problems as are associated with abuse, would Paul still consider the law to be un-Constitutional? Is there not a right for adults to use (or even abuse) so long as their use/abuse was private, or consensually used with other adults?[3]

    Under the tab 'Who is Ron Paul?" we read that he is "the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government," and "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

    But in his criticism of the 'war on drugs' he rose on the floor of the House of Representatives "in reluctant support for S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act. My support is reluctant because S. 1789 is an uncomfortable mix of some provisions that reduce the harms of the federal war on drugs and other provisions that increase the harms of that disastrous and unconstitutional war. I am supporting this legislation because I am optimistic the legislation's overall effect will be positive."

    So it is incorrect to say that Paul 'never' votes for un-Constitutional legislation. In this case he voted to change it, not eliminate it.

    But Ron Paul is the front-runner in the House on the issue of freedom and liberty, according to the Constitution as he sees it.

    The question still remains, lacking any discoverable evidence, whether Paul is an Originalist. This is important, because the Tea Party needs a leader who uses Original Intent, and does not simply pay it lip service.[4] The Tea Party is showing a propensity for getting sharply defined cuts in budged spending; but if money is continued to be spent on un-Constitutional laws (or eliminated from some) without attacking the root cause--the existence of the law itself--then that law, or others like it, are free to be hoisted back into Congress by the next liberal/progressive government.

  

[1] Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2011: The Brushfires of Freedom Are Burning!

Disclaimer: RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul. For Ron Paul's official website go to House.gov/Paul 

[2] See Randy E. Barnett's Original Means vs. Intent

[3] See Speeches and Statements then The Statement on the Fair Sentencing Act (see)

[4] I sent an advance copy to the Congressman's Office, but I do not expect a reply before this is published.I will however share any answers in this blog, after an answer is received.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

A Brief, Brief Exam of the Modern Counter-Enlightenment

    Someone recently asked if we have passed through the postmodern era into a new period of cultural and social history.

    No.

    "Marxism and postmodernism: people often seem to find this combination peculiar or paradoxical..."[1] They are neither. It was the 'modernists' who led us from Lockean/Jeffersonian individualism into the 'Beat Generation' of artists who came, post-WWII, from the indoctrination of the socialist elements of the unionist movements of their parents' and grandparents' generation.

    The tenets of the movement, its belief in progress, freedom, and equality, had been sustained from the outset by artists and intellectuals, and embraced by those who reaped the material benefits it brought.[2]

   Those were the individualists like Alexis de Tocqueville, whose historic first-hand description of Americans showed us to believe that "all values are human-centered, the individual is of supreme importance, and all individuals are morally equal. Individualism places great value on self-reliance, on privacy, and on mutual respect. Negatively, it embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state."[3] And so it included writers like Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mark Twain, and Washington Irving.

    But envy of men like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, A. A. Talmadge, and others led to a form of anti-industrialism where the forerunner of today's lobbyists were the so-called competitors of those men. 

    "Intense lobbying began between 1869 and 1877, during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant. The most influential lobbies wanted railroad subsidies and a tariff on wool. At the same time in the Reconstruction South, lobbying was a high intensity activity near the state legislatures, especially regarding railroad subsidies. The term itself came from Britain to describe approaches made to Members of Parliament in the lobbies of the House of Commons..."[4]

    Lobbying as it was practiced then does not 'embrace opposition to authority', it used authority; nor did it despise 'all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state'. It wanted the intervention of the State, because then the lobbyists gained power over those who could manage quite nicely without any government assistance.

    In other cases it was quite the opposite: those who could do quite nicely without government interference or 'assistance', were forced to pay-off men in high places who could create interference with tariffs and subsidies to their competitors who were seen as being unable to 'compete' without running interference on their behalf.

    'Modernists' were therefore anti-industrialist anti-individualists. The violence of the unionist movement is rampant with people more interested in wresting power from the industries, than with the plight of the poor working class who needed someone to speak for them, to help them raise their wages and gain benefits. "The Russian Revolution had seemed at the time, and for a long time after, to be the answer to the progressive modernist's dream."[2]

  We are--and have been since the age of Rousseau and Kant--in the age of the counter-Enlightenment. To think of 'modernism' or 'post-modernism' while stuck in one era (in which we are going backward toward Plato's Cave) is ridiculous. Until we overthrow the counter-Enlightenment that spawned Napoleon and Trotsky, Eugene V. Debs, the Industrial Workers of the World,  and "the anti-modern, ideological religious right"[5]--until we do this and get back to thinking in terms of negative rights rather than positive rights, (not to be confused with 'negative liberty' and 'positive liberty') will we actually be in the 'modern era'. Only then, someday far in the future, can we ever look to a 'post-modern' era---and I hope it's rational.

[1] New Left Review
[2] Modernism and Politics
[3] Britannica Precise Encyclopedia
[4] Lobbying in the United States: History
[5] American conservatism as Counter Enlightenment

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011

Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Ron Paul vs. Paul Ryan

    I was surprised to read that Congressman Ron Paul was criticizing Paul Ryan's huge $4T budged overhaul.
    In part, he said he thinks we are “drifting to a point that our big government [ ] tells us what we can do and be responsible for us. And if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps. And deficits don’t matter. And if you need money, you print the money. And we have this moral obligation to police the world."
    But that makes sense--sort of. Ron Paul is correct, but where has Paul ever said this or that government program is un-Constitutional? Has he only criticized 'big' government without attacking its roots? You have to eradicate the roots of anything be they plants, government programs, or ideologies--or they will grow back again.
    Paul did say more, to that end. "We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem." Paul said. What is the philosophy of government?
    The congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. "Ryan," he said, "doesn’t reject that notion. I do.”
    On the Mangru Report hosted by Dan Mangru, posted on Paul's own fan website, Paul says this:

"As long as the American people think that we have to police the world and have this world empire and that we have to take care of people from cradle to grave, no tax system will work. You have to change the philosophy of government. Then you can do away with the income tax and not replace it with anything just as we had before 1930."

    But I still have to ask what Paul's philosophy of government is? Is he afraid to confront the idea of un-Constitutionality run rampant, or have I simply been missing those new articles and TV interviews?
    Perhaps it is because Paul only thinks that we are drifting toward Big Government that I am peeved about his remarks. That makes me skeptical of whether he is up to the job of helping to lead us out of our suicide-by-altruism mentality.
    I will do some homework, and find out. Ron Paul is correct about Paul Ryan--but only if Ron Paul believes the current philosophy of government itself runs counter to Originalism and to what is specifically written, both in the Constitution and in the letters and papers by the Founders about that philosophy. Otherwise, he is no different from Paul Ryan; he only wears a different suit to hide what he isn't showing.
    Show us the beef, Congressman Paul. Show us your Originalist interpretations.


© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa