I recently remarked on the rhetorical similarities between the Civil War-era Copperheads, “the Peace Democrats” who went out of their way to obstruct the Union war effort, and today’s Democratic Party.
Of course, rhetoric is one thing. Action to obstruct is another. With their recent vote to hamstring the authority of the president and his ability to prosecute the war in Iraq, the Democratics have assumed full Copperhead status by moving from the former to the latter.
Congress’s action in this case is clearly unconstitutional. The principle that once Congress has funded a military force, that body has no further authority to direct or limit its deployment or employment, was established during the administration of John Adams and America’s “Quasi-War” with France (1798-1801).
Unfortunately for the health of the Republic, Copperhead behavior has become institutionalized in today’s Democratic Party establishment and among a disturbingly high proportion of that party’s voters. With the honorable exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and a handful of others, there is no faction within the Democratic Party that can counter the influence of today’s Copperheads.
The members of Rhode Island’s congressional delegation must be so proud of themselves. No doubt the ghost of Rep. Clement Vallandigham (D-OH), the arch-Copperhead and Confederate sympathizer, is proud of them, too. The Rhode Island delegation may not sympathize with our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, but by their vote, they have given those enemies as much aid and comfort as Vallandigham and the other Copperheads gave the Confederate cause during the War of the Rebellion.
David Frum makes some interesting points. First, about the resurrection about the ERA:
Back in the 1970s, ERA was defeated by a grassroots organizing campaign led by Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly deployed many arguments against the ERA, and one of the most effective was that ERA would authorize same-sex marriage. At the time, this argument drove ERA proponents wild with fury. They denounced it as hysterical exaggeration, an attempt a common-sense bid for women’s rights by attributing to it extreme consequences that would never be countenanced by an American court.
A quarter century later, we can see that Schlafly was absolutely right. In states with local ERAs, same-sex marriage advocates have often argued in court that the ban on sex discrimination required state courts to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. That argument was accepted by the supremem court of Hawaii until overturned by a state constitutional amendment.
If this ERA movement goes forward, it will be curious to watch same-sex marriage advocates abruptly pivot from their past support for federalism and decentralization.
There’s no slippery slope here! More from, er, Frum:
We’ve been hearing since November about the resurgence of the progressive left – the new enthusiasm, the new energy, the new organizations, the new commitment. Amidst all these exciting novelty, there is only one thing lacking: new ideas. The resurgent “progressive” movement is the most backward-looking political force since William Jennings Bryan tried to repeal the industrial revolution. Their big issues – a government healthcare monopoly! do away with secret union ballots! and now … ERA! – date respectively to the 1940s, the 1930s, and the 1970s.
It’s just bizarre to tune into blogosphere debates to watch freshfaced 20-somethings passionately champion, as if just invented, policy proposals that were old when their grandparents were young. If this is progressiveness, what would reaction look like?
Um, conservatism?
[Open full post]The British government’s lack of forceful reaction to the kidnapping of 15 of their sailors is becoming increasingly disheartening. In the first few days, it was possible to believe there were some low-profile, backchannel negotiations being conducted that might have resolved the situation quickly and quietly, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
This is what passes these days as a forceful reaction to state-sponsored hostage taking, according to CNN…
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett also announced Wednesday that Britain would freeze all bilateral business with Iran until the 15 personnel were released.If the current government of the UK doesn’t react in a more serious way very soon, they will seriously undermine the West’s ability to carry out deterrence and containment based strategies against the government of Iran. There’s no deterrent shield when an enemy thinks you won’t fight back, and you can’t contain an enemy who knows that all he has to do is push to make you retreat. Failing to respond to aggression only encourages further aggression.
“We are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity,” Beckett told members of parliament.
(And a question for Congressman James Langevin or any progressives who would care to answer; will they describe the kidnapping of British sailors as Iranian “escalation” of the war in the Middle East, or is escalation something only the United States can be guilty of?) [Open full post]
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has introduced major healthcare reform legislation into the U.S. Senate. Kimberley Strassel had a short summary of the proposal in last week’s OpinionJournal…
[Senator Coburn’s proposal] would remove the subsidy corporations get for health care, and instead give the money to individuals–putting them in charge of their health expenditures. It would expand HSAs, and allow consumers to buy insurance from any state, thereby avoiding costly regulations. It would modernize Medicare, allowing workers to invest their payroll taxes into a savings account and control their care in their retirement years. It would free up the states to inject Medicaid with new flexibility and competition.Senator Coburn’s website has a more detailed summary…
Promoting prevention: The legislation will reform our rudderless and wasteful federal prevention programs and demand results and accountability. Five preventable chronic diseases – heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes – cause two-thirds of American deaths. Seventy five percent of total health expenditures are spent to treat these largely preventable chronic diseases. A sound prevention strategy will save countless lives and billions of dollars.[Open full post]
MediChoice tax rebates that will shift tax breaks away from businesses to individuals: Giving Americans a rebate check ($2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families) to buy their own insurance will foster competition, improve quality and drive down prices. This provision will help put individuals back in charge of the health care, and help restore the doctor-patient relationship that has been severed by third-party government and health insurance bureaucrats.
Creation of a national market for health insurance: The bill would give Americans the right to shop for health insurance anywhere in America. Patients should not be forced to be pay for outrageously expensive health plans in states like New Jersey when they can save thousands by buying plans from companies in other states.
Creating transparency of health care costs and services: This Act requires hospitals and providers receiving reimbursements from Medicare to disclose their estimated and actual charges for all patients as well as the rates they are reimbursed through Medicare and Medicaid. This provision could allow patients to “Google” their doctor and comparison-shop for health care the way that they do for cars, computers, or other products and services.
Securing Medicare’s future by increasing choice and encouraging savings: The bill retains existing benefits but encourages true competition among private plans to hold down costs, a model already is working in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit. The plan would give Medicare recipients similar health care options available to Members of Congress and employees of Fortune 500 companies.
Keeping Medicaid on mission: The bill liberates the poor from substandard government care and offers states the option to provide their Medicaid beneficiaries the kind of health care coverage that wealthier Americans enjoy. The bill creates incentives for states to achieve private universal coverage for their population. The bill offers states the freedom to design the programs that serve their beneficiaries with the best care instead of the current, one-size-fits-all straitjacket.
…the Democratic Party brings you (drumroll please)……………………………….
The Equal Rights Amendment!!!
Liberal Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume “the fight for women’s equality” on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women’s Equality Amendment.
Sens. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both of New York, plan to join Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, in making the Tuesday afternoon announcement…The proposed amendment would affect issues ranging from hiring and wages to restrictions on women serving in military combat units…
“It’s been a long, hard fight for women’s equality,” Maloney said Monday at the Women’s Equality Summit hosted by the National Council of Women’s Organizations in Washington, D.C.
“We’ve achieved a lot for women — even in my lifetime,” she said. “But we have not done enough.
“There is still a great deal of discrimination out there,” Maloney argued, citing income disparity between men and women, gender-based “discriminatory clubs” and “gender-based hate crimes.”
“Discrimination is real; it’s out there,” Maloney said. “They are constantly trying to roll [women’s rights] back.
“It’s never going to go away until we pass the women’s equality amendment,” she said.
Actually, I guess the wait has been since 1923. Congrats to the ‘Crats for bringing up this crucial and pressing issue.
[Open full post]Yeah, yeah, I know I’m a superstitious flatearther afraid of science and willing to impose my fear-based morality on others, but I’m beginning to wonder if our culture will be able to muster the fortitude to object to any scientific “advances.” The latest:
Scientists have created the world’s first human-sheep chimera – which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs.
The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells – and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer. …
The process would involve extracting stem cells from the donor’s bone marrow and injecting them into the peritoneum of a sheep’s foetus. When the lamb is born, two months later, it would have a liver, heart, lungs and brain that are partly human and available for transplant.
Are we just numb to this sort of thing at this point? Or do we live in a state of disbelief, as if the news were fiction? Or do we lack the imagination to envision the ways in which these trends can go horribly wrong, or the self-awareness to understand how the lines in the sand of our tolerance drift away with every gust of scientific presumption?
[Open full post]As our esteemed legislators consider ways in which to dictate business practices (including a bill that would put a minimum duration on coupons), warn Rhode Island students that the flattering and charming seamen whom they meet at weddings may deceive and murder them, and ensure healthier diets, I can’t help but wonder whether we oughtn’t cut to the chase and send emissaries over to London in order to get us up to speed with the United Kingdom’s methods:
In the UK there is approximately one surveillance camera for every 14 people and issues of invading civil liberties surround ever new development in our surveillance society.
… There is still some way to go before a “smart camera” can tell the difference between details such as a handshake and a punch, but Velastin believes they are not too far away.
“At the moment you can’t get a camera that can do that, not in a meaningful way, but this is something we are working towards. In three to five years we hope to have a program that would identify from your walk whether or not you are carrying a gun,” he told CNN.
Perhaps in five to seven years, these programs will be able to discern whether citizens have been consuming artificial trans fats by the way they lick their lips.
[Open full post]This snippet from the ProJo’s Robert Whitcomb got me thinking:
This past Sunday’s Boston Herald detailed, in a story by Phil Restuccia, a growing movement of consumers and local businesspeople called Local First. This national group has organized 17,000 businesses around the country into 50 groups promoting their services directly to local shoppers, appealing to geographic loyalty and a sense of community. It’s kind of the “Small Is Beautiful” movement redux, or a cousin of the New Urbanism.
Founded by Massachusetts health-club owner Laury Hammel, the movement wants to strengthen community ties by keeping locally owned businesses in, well, business and in so doing to strengthen frayed community ties in anomie-ridden America.
The movement has gained considerable traction, but given Americans’ obsession with the low prices offered by national store chains whose stuff is made by cheap labor abroad, and the comfort factor for many consumers of national brands, you have to wonder how far this movement can go — as attractive as it is to affluent and urbane people in the Northeast. {Links added by me–MAC}
As the sole breadwinner of a family of four, I certainly have some “free-market” proclivities (ie; cheap=good!). Nonetheless, I also have always felt a certain–responsibility?–to frequent local, mom-and-pop or small businesses when I can.
But I wonder what a conservative economic theory would hold as being more, well, conservative. I think it safe to say that, generally speaking, if the quality of the product is the same, that a larger business–like the big box retailers–can offer the same product at a cheaper price. But is it–should it be–all about price?
In the short term, it’s hard to argue against paying the cheaper price. But what about long term consequences? Should we promote buying local, even if it’s more expensive, because it helps out our own micro (Rhode Island) and micro-micro (town or city) economy? I would think that buying local will help local business (wow, how insightful, huh?), the local economy and, yes, even local tax revenues. I suppose this is a micro-economic version of the argument for “Buying American.”
I realize this is theoretical and that most people will go for the lowest price, but what do other conservatives think? In other words, quality of product being equal, does it make fiscally conservative sense to prioritize buying local?
Congressman James Langevin‘s op-ed in Sunday’s Projo explaining his vote in favor of a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq could benefit from a few clarifications. Congressman Langevin says…
Despite calls by the Iraq Study Group for a new approach to the “grave and deteriorating” situation in Iraq, President Bush has proposed escalating military operations…1. Does the Congressman believe that Iraqi insurgents have themselves escalated their war against the U.S, or does he believe that escalation is something that only the United States can be “guilty” of? If he does believe that radical Islamists have escalated the war, why is a counter-escalation not appropriate, unless he believes the only appropriate response to an enemy escalation is always retreat?
Congressman Langevin says…
The Iraqis’ problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed as such.2. But committing extra troops to Baghdad has made the city increasingly livable for ordinary Iraqis. Shouldn’t improving the living conditions of ordinary Iraqi citizens be recognized as a significant contribution to a political solution, or don’t ordinary citizens matter in Congressman Langevin’s view of politics? Does the Congressman accept the type of realist thinking that holds that politics is the process of elites making deals amongst themselves, regardless of the consequences for oridnary citizens?
3. A specific example of a political settlement that needs to be achieved in Iraq is an agreement on sharing of oil revenues. According to the BBC, a draft law has been prepared and is supposed to be finalized by May. Does the Congressman’s belief that there is no legitimate role for the military in rebuilding Iraq mean that he believes that something like a settlement on oil-revenues would be more easily achieved if the strongest armed groups in Iraq were Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias and Al-Qaida-in-Iraq?
Congressman Langevin says…
Our military now finds itself in the middle of a civil war, and it is time to bring our troops home….The House voted last week on an emergency spending bill that would, for the first time, set a clear deadline to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq. As one who originally voted against giving the president authority to invade Iraq, I proudly supported this Democratic measure as the first real step to end the war.4. When the Congressman says that the war in Iraq a civil war and he says that Congressional action can end the war, is he implying that he sees the U.S presence as the cause of the war, or promising more than he can deliver, or just guilty of sloppy reasoning?
5. Does Congressman Langevin endorse a blanket policy of never using troops in a civil war, meaning that he will not support the use of force in civil wars under any circumstances, including the genocidal civil war in Sudan? If this is the case, then what incentive does the central government in Sudan have to stop their attacks on the people of Darfur? [Open full post]
The new Democratic Congress really is changing the way things are done in Washington, aren’t they? I’ll leave it up to the reader to define “change” (h/t) in John Fund’s story:
[Open full post]Democrats promised reform and instituted “a moratorium” on all earmarks until the system was cleaned up. Now the appropriations committees are privately accepting pork-barrel requests again. But curiously, the scorekeeper on earmarks, the Library of Congress’s Congressional Research Service (CRS)–a publicly funded, nonpartisan federal agency–has suddenly announced it will no longer respond to requests from members of Congress on the size, number or background of earmarks. “They claim it’ll be transparent, but they’re taking away the very data that lets us know what’s really happening,” says Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. “I’m convinced the appropriations committees are flexing their muscles with CRS.”
Indeed, the shift in CRS policy represents a dramatic break with its 12-year practice of supplying members with earmark data. “CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals,” stated a private Feb. 22 directive from CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan…The concern now is that free-spending appropriations committees will use the new CRS gag rule to define earmarks downward. “We need CRS to continue its reliable reporting so we can save the taxpayers money,” says Sen. [James] DeMint…
…CRS is merely being asked to continue providing objective data. If it can’t do that, why do taxpayers shell out $100 million a year to employ its 700 researchers?
