Monday, June 16, 2008
A Constitutionalist first
I am at heart a Constitutionalist first before being a libertarian. Put it this way, even if I were a pro-choicer I'd still be against Roe vs. Wade, there ain't no talk of trimesters in the Constitution or even in the emanations of its penumbras. Even if I were a pro-choicer in favor of Adam and Steve getting married I'd still be against what the California Supreme Court did by overturning a clear majority of the voters there. Whasa matter? don't wanna do the legwork in your state legislatures ya lazy bums ya! So even if I were a pro-choicer in favor of gay marriage who feels pot should be sold over the counter at CVS I still wouldn't have a gripe with people who don't want drivers on angel dust plowing into shoppers at crowded shopping malls, would Ben Franklin say that the War on Drugs is somehow wrong-headed and irresponsible as a national policy? The document comes first, not your personal preferences, libertarianism is not the same thing as constitutionalism. As that conservative wag Florence King once quipped "as ye roe so shall ye wade."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well said Z, well said!
ReplyDeleteIt's just that I had a moment of clarity before and thought how many times I called myself a libertarian which I am to some extent but then again it doesn't tell the whole story about my political philosophy. I think soapie would agree with me that we're both constitutionalists first even though libertarian has such a cool ring to it. Constitutionalist doesn't sound as sexy, libertarian sounds rugged and vaguely constitutional even though it's not.
ReplyDeleteWho says Constitutionalist doesn't sound sexy, it does to me!
ReplyDeleteAs to your previous discussion on why you blog, sure you want to influence others, but I also think it helps us reach that moment of clarity.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, it's just a piece of paper. Libertarians, on the other hand, are like Marlboro Man, their plank is basically I Don't Give a *, the subclause is It's All Good, leave people alone, live-and-let-live but on the gay marriage issue I'd say there is then no logical way to ban polygamy, incestuous relationships, the farmer in the dell. Over at Hannityland I brought up the incest thing once vis a vis the gay marriage debate and a liberal poster there, one Sappho Cokesbury (remember her?) commented "invalid slippery slope argument." Why invalid? It's no more invalid than saying once you legalize pot you'll be legalizing the other stuff too. I'm a big fan of the slippery slope when debating, if anything it forces us to look down the Road.
ReplyDelete"that moment of clarity"
ReplyDeleteNot only blogging but reading Rand clarifies your head as well, whereas before you couldn't put a name on something or frame some vague issue that's been gnawing at you she puts it into words for you. For this alone she's worth reading, if anything reading a Rand work helps you think better. I was thinking maybe we can even use Atlas as a barometer of the election, which candidates if any are upholding her principles in their proposed policies? (I'd say neither) so she can clarify your thoughts as well as clarify an election and what's at stake imo.
If Atlas was the barometer, I don't think either candidate would even register on it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about the original posting that is nice is that you can be totally objective, and so many people today tend not to be when it comes to certain pet issues they have. They start making all sorts of exceptions to help their cause. Hence, we have lots of pandering politicians.
ReplyDeleteAs I said at my blog, our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
Not only are they spinning they might come out of their graves! (now there's a good Twilight Zone). Think about it though, Harry Blackmun and his gang came up with this trimester scheme in Roe but shouldn't that be left to state legislatures? I would hazard a guess that most people, even the choicers, are not for abortion all throughout the pregnancy so what the Supreme Court did in '73 was really radical when you stop to think about it. Here's where I think Rudy made a huge mistake early on, he could've said "my personal views on the matter are irrelevant, Roe is simply very bad law." Most social cons would've gone for that and we wouldn't have wound up with McCain. On most other issues of a non-social nature Rudy tends to be more conservative so as to offset the base's misgivings about his social stands. Very early on Rudy was thought to me the eventual frontrunner for the GOP and Hil on the Democratic side, this seemed to be the conventional wisdom but this one was erratic and had a life of its own.
ReplyDeleteRecall also though Rudy's position on the 2nd amendment, and I think he was for amnesty. too. The pro-choice part of Rudy was just one negative for conservatives.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but if he were pro-life or at least anti-Roe the stench wouldn't have been as bad. True, he was very instrumental in making NYC one of those "sanctuary cities" and he tried to make a very transparent federalist case for gun rights near the end which the Base saw right through. You said though that he'd make a good Secretary of State. Think though that Rudy's horn is longer than McCain's or is his longer or are they about the same?
ReplyDeleteEveryone thought Rudy would be tough on terrorists, I agreed which is why he'd be good as Secretary of State.
ReplyDeleteTheir horns might be about the same
I agree. What I don't like is McCain getting all pc when he perceives anyone making a crack about his age, that's the sin of ageism you know. I think a person's age can be a valid concern but he wants if off the table. Obama has alot going for him but I think his relative youth is a big factor, kinda like JFK just looking better than Nixon. It might be superficial but it's a reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd all Obama has to say is "change" and everyone falls all over him. I want to scream at the followers, why not find out what the changes he wants to make will be? It's the changes he wants that makes him a bad candidate for America.
ReplyDeleteHe deliberately talks in generalities, you can't read the fine print 'cause there ain't any. So elections have come down to this, a candidate's wife appearing on The View.
ReplyDeleteWith Bill Clinton in office you had the political strategy of triangulation going on. As formulated by Dick Morris it basically meant not being too liberal or too conservative but coming to some midway point between the two when making policy, thus we got things like welfare reform. With Obama you can throw triangulation out the window, you can't get more liberal and I don't even think he'll even try to work with real conservatives. So basically you're gonna get one straight liberal program after another, wouldn't surprise me if some pillow talk weaves its way in too.
ReplyDeleteWe reap what we sow, therefore if people start voting for candidates based on charisma over character, or single issues over a comprehensive set of principles, then they get what they deserve. The rest of us get screwed though.
ReplyDeleteHow could a candidate who speaks in such generalities get so far? The Obama phenomenon has been partly fueled by the media, ok big-time, and usually the msm would be all over someone for not being more specific (Tim Russert excepted of course).
ReplyDeleteThe msm is selective in holding candidates accountable to specifics, you are right Z, Obama seems to be getting a free pass so far from them.
ReplyDeleteThe msm have helped to make the Cult of Obama even possible. I remember a couple of years ago this new mag came out called Men's Vogue and they did a cover feature on Obama possibly being the nation's first black president so it really started way back then. He has a charisma and seems like such a nice person especially in this age of the meanies, like if his campaign stop swung past your job and you started complaining about your boss to him he'd listen to you, maybe even go in and have a talk with the guy. Anyway I think this is many people's impression of him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well he is willing to sit down and talk to frickin' terrorists so why not?
ReplyDeleteDid you read his ground rules first (see today's blog)? Do not in any way criticize the man, don't hate him because he's black.
ReplyDeleteWhat are we allowed to say about Obama anyway?
ReplyDeletePretty much nothing. Don't call him a liberal, don't talk about the missus, don't talk about his one term in the Senate, don't talk about this, don't talk about that. Just let him do all the talking so he can waltz into the White House.
ReplyDelete