‘No Serious Leader Since Has Called For Its Repeal’
Posted on | March 13, 2010 | 16 Comments
by Smitty
Charles Krauthammer offers a stream of wonderful insights. Hopefully, news of this post can reach up into his study and tease a bit of follow-up from him on a point in his recent Real Clear Politics piece:
The rotation of power is the finest political instrument ever invented for the consolidation of what were once radical and deeply divisive policies. The classic example is the New Deal. Republicans railed against it for 20 years. Then Dwight Eisenhower came to power, wisely left it intact, and no serious leader since has called for its repeal.
Sure, the New Deal has the weight of decades behind it. Also, an unsustainable funding profile. Furthermore, to throw out a counterfactual, I daresay that, had the Internet existed at the time, FDR would be having as much success passing the New Deal as BHO is with ObamaCare. Maybe FDR would have better success, as the abject foolishness of Federal entitlements took a parade of decades and buffoons to get rolling.
So, my questions for CK are:
- What, if any, meaning do you ascribe to the 10th Amendment?
- Why do you think allowing something to exist with such arguably deleterious effects is “wise”?
- Why do you think driving the American political dialogue back in the direction of the genius of Federalism is an “unserious” act?
- Do you think running chronic and worsening deficits, and unpayable national debt is ethical, moral and sustainable? How much wife beating is “enough”?
For the record, I submit that FDR’s free-basing of the Constitution in his 1944 SOU speech was monstrous. It was the political equivalent of the snake in the Garden saying “Hath God said . . . ?” Legislation like the Federal Reserve Act, the Nude Eel, the Great Society, etc. can always claim tactical victory.
Yet now, decades later, they seem a cure worse than the disease from a strategic vantage. They have altered the fabric of the country. They have arguably brought tactical improvement, but, strategically, seem icing on a turd, at least in retrospect.
So, apparently because of the weight of tradition, realistic of assessment of societal maturity, or the ridiculous political effort required to do anything besides play along, CK deems leaders who’d threaten the status quo “unserious”.
It remains to be seen if, like a junkie kicking the needle, America can muster the fortitude to alter course.
While I don’t think outright repeal seriously possible, I do think it reasonable to call the Progressive bluff, and poke them with the 1oth Amendment at every turn. Because Progressivism, like a mold, worked its way around the very protections meant to precludes its foolishness.
And serious leaders who can articulate a means to escape the pit of debt and entitlement bondage need to be identified and supported. CK reminds me of George Will. Possibly anything resembling vigor is simply too much to ask of the gentlemen.
Update: Mommy took umbrage at this post. I’ve gone back and bolded a point at the end, and want to re-iterate that TANSTAAFL, and that it will take something more than a serious leader, a full-on genius of a statesman (or -woman) to drain this Progressive swamp. The 10th Amendment was a front-end interlock meant to preclude things like the current Federal over-reach and debt. It is far too simple a statement to do more than inform reform.
Comments
- KG
- KG
- K~Bob
- http://k_bob.smallerpage.com K~Bob
- http://theothermccain.com smitty
- Adobe Walls
- Adobe Walls
- http://theothermccain.com Robert Stacy McCain
- chuck cross
- chuck cross
- The Mexican
- The Mexican
- K~Bob
- http://k_bob.smallerpage.com K~Bob
