The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ruth Marcus, That Is Some Highly Ignorant Noise You’re Emitting

Posted on | September 17, 2011 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

Daily Pundit saw it, and zeroed in on the same section I did, but let me slice it differently, emphasis mine:

It is, at bottom, an argument against the 20th century — specifically against the notion that the Constitution envisions and empowers a muscular federal government able to ensure that its citizens have clean air, healthy food and safe workplaces.

To grasp the radical nature of the constitutional conservative approach, consider the record of every Republican president since the New Deal.

In the first bold place, Marcus, you’re doing nothing more than echoing FDR. In essentially latching onto a Second Bill of Rights, which has never properly been ratified, you tacitly admit you’ve blown by Article V. Way to go.

See, the Constitution precedes the Nude Eel*. If you wanted to show that Constitutional conservatives are radical, you should show their records against the original document, not FyoDoR’s Folly.

Can I recommend some reading to you? Amar’s books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are actually some decent scholarship. You should read them, Ruth. They might help you look less silly in print.

And these Constitutional Progressives. Workin’ hard, trying to paper over the fact that FDR pulled a masterful Article V end-around. Screw them, their crappy ideas, and the lame web server to which the ideas were published. In its way, it is amusing to see Progressives tacitly admit that they’ve really screwed up, lost the public debate, and now have to work to re-frame the debate. Seventy years late, $14+ trillion short, ya jackwagons.

*Will I burn for that link? Probably.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

3 Responses to “Ruth Marcus, That Is Some Highly Ignorant Noise You’re Emitting”

  1. Anonymous
    September 17th, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

    Along with the constitutional debates – which we’ve been losing in the court of public opinion/ignorance for 100+ years – it’s not clear that the government is very good at taking care of those post-19th c. expansionary respsonsibilities.

    “Progressives” like to point to “clean air, healthy food, and safe workplaces” as accomplishments of progressive governance. Relatively speaking, these are somewhat discrete spheres that partly lend themselves to technocratic solutions. In retrospect, though, it’s not at all clear to what extent we should credit progressivism to improving conditions in these spheres, as there were hundreds of other variables in play. And that’s keeping in mind that the problems of air, food, and factory floors are childs play compared to more abstract & complex socioeconomic problems.

  2. Matt Lewis
    September 17th, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

    While I think there is a legitimate role for government in this area (where you actually have certain people causing harm to others via pollution), by far the most important factor is having a wealthy populace that can afford to care enough about these things beyond providing for themselves.

    Part of the problem with what we have currently is, of course, the natural instincts of bureaucracy.  Combine that with the progressive impulse and the typical shallow appeals to emotion and we find ourselves paralyzed to the point that we almost (I hope so, anyways) can’t even build a pipeline to bring oil in from our nice neighbors to the north.

    Also, it’s clear that Smitty is going way above and beyond the call of duty here.  I mean, separated from his family, he’s still endeavoring to persevere through a Ruth Marcus column!  Next he’ll be suffering through Eugene Robinson, or something.  Thanks, Smitty, for all you do for us.

  3. Adjoran
    September 18th, 2011 @ 3:38 am

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You think Ruth Marcus cares about being educated on the facts?  I assure you she does not, and that she considers the Founders to be every bit as radical and against her system of beliefs as the “constitutional conservatives” she rails against today.

    Ruth is only concerned with making everything she can fit the narrative and demonizing anything she cannot.  That’s what she does, that’s what her editors want, that’s what her readers have been trained to expect.

    I don’t know why people make such a big deal about “reading both sides” of the issues.  Oh, I get the idea and once there was a point, when Reston and Rosenthal The left no longer has honest proponents.  The writing isn’t stellar on either side (excepting of course present company and a few others), but what is to be gained by reading drivel?  I don’t balance the classics with Bulwer-Lytton, and I don’t have time to waste on Ruth Marcus.