by Smitty
Commenter wallamaarif offers comments #17 and #20 on
Get Stuffed, Alan Colmes that merit examination.
Before delving into details, let’s note that the overwhelming bulk of human history, and, indeed, the contemporary situation, has featured unrepresentative regimes. For example, the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon does a fine job of kicking European representative democracy in the dental work. Examples get uglier from there.
#17:
Good job ignoring this part of Colmes’ article, then demonstrating its central point:
“There is something upsetting about how eager folks on the right have been to say it’s all been downhill since the 1780s. Sure, if called on it, as in the Marshall-Kagan business, they’ll backtrack and say that they obviously think emancipation and women’s suffrage were good things. But they appear mainly unperturbed about the fact that in 1792, the percentage of the population with full citizenship was probably less than one-fourth. It’s an afterthought.”
Exactly. Most conservative pleas for a return to strict constitutional government ignore the fact that relatively few “Americans” got to participate in anything remotely resembling a free market at the nation’s founding.
So the fact that things were less than perfect at when the 1787 Constitution was signed renders the document useless? If you read Amar’s book, you’ll discover that the 1787 Constitution was, itself, a fairly radical step over its Colonial/State predecessors. For example, there were no requirements for land ownership to vote. Yes, women and blacks took longer, and it’s as easy to shoot the Founding messengers for operating within the realm of the possible as it is to contend that a 223 year old document must obviously be useless because it’s old. Your argument would be equally cool on either foundation.
The idea that America is somehow less free today, when all 100% of adults are enfranchised but taxed at one of the lowest rates in modern world history, than it was at its founding, when being born with the wrong skin color or genitalia consigned you to lifelong second-class status, but there was no income tax, is ludicrous on its face.
The rest of your post is a festival of straw men. (Who, for example, on the Left doesn’t believe in “sober management”? Seems like the last time the budget was balanced, a Democrat was in office. Check the deficit records of the Presidents who came out of the modern conservative movement, especially Reagan, for a clear picture of irresponsible financial management.)
When they wrote the 1787 Constitution, the Framers were delegating certain powers to a Federal government. While 1913 brought the scourge of the income tax (Amendment 16), it also stripped States of an advocate (Amendment 17), and brought in the Federal Reserve Act, which un-elected, un-accountable cabal of thieves has supported large scale, systemic robbery from the people. Show me the people in either the Democratic or Republican party (modulo Paul Ryan) doing anything substantial to plan for a debt-free America? Your attempt at holding up a balanced budget figleaf tempts a remark somewhere between Biden and Emmanual on the potty-mouth scale. Tell you what: review this clip and let’s talk about debt and deficit.
#20:
Well, I tried. Did I “shoot the messenger”? No, I responded to your artful eliding of what seemed to me to be a valid point.
Hopefully this more full response answers the mail.
“History is unalterable…” I agree, which is why I wrote the above comment, the substance of which you declined to address.
“…which is why the Left ignores and airbrushes it.” My entire argument is based on matters of historical record. How have I “airbrushed” anything?
The country’s problems, in my opinion, are rooted in the Federal government undertaking non-Federal tasking.
A response might be: “If DC hadn’t enacted Social Security/Fannie/Freddie/ObamaCare, it wouldn’t get done.”
You may argue that pointing to the debt is a strawman, but, if the strawman is of sufficient size/density that it crushes you like a bug when it topples, you may want to respect that strawman.
Also: I realize that it’s pretty much standard fare in web disputes to respond to a charge (in this case: “you’re ignoring the historical case against your position”) with some variant of “I know you are but what am I?” (in this case: “the Left ignores and airbrushes [history].”) But really, is it that difficult to respond to a substantive critique with a specific rebuttal?
Unless you don’t have one, that is. If that’s the case, by all means continue slandering liberals in general for saying things you don’t have an answer for.
And no, none of the points I’m raising in this post are terribly fresh for this blog.
You seem more avid than many on the Left. Hang out, join in. We can recover the country.


