The Survival of the Republic: A Second Reason for Reading Montesquieu
by Paul A. RaheIn earlier posts – here and here – I drew attention to the pre-eminence of Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu in and for a time after the eighteenth century, and I suggested that at least one of the reasons for his pre-eminence is still pertinent today. There are other such reasons, which I addressed at length in Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty and in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, and they, too, deserve consideration. I will discuss one such here.
Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws is a large book, and it is difficult to know which elements within it are the most salient. There is, however, one passage in which Montesquieu tells us outright that what he is about to say is fundamental to everything else that he says. “I,” he writes near the end of the first of the work’s six parts, “shall be able to be understood only when the next four chapters have been read.” Then, in those four chapters, he argues that forms of government are closely related to the size of the territory that must be governed. Republics are well-suited to polities small in extent; monarchies, to polities of intermediate size; and despotisms to polities great in size.
The pertinence of this claim to the situation of the American Founding Fathers should be obvious. Especially in modern times, this would appear to mean that republicanism can only be viable in mountainous places such as Switzerland, where the geography virtually rules out the establishment of anything but tiny states. It is, then, in no way surprising that the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists turned to a considerable extent upon the question whether it is somehow possible to establish a viable republic on an extended territory.
The Anti-Federalists tended to cite the chapter in The Spirit of Laws asserting that republics must be small. The Federalists made two points in response. First, they argued that the individual states – apart, perhaps, from Rhode Island – were by this standard too large to be republics. And, second, they pointed to the early chapters of the second part of The Spirit of Laws, where Montesquieu observed that, in a world dominated by monarchies of intermediate size and despotisms exceedingly large in extent, small republics might be able to provide for their own defense and make themselves thereby viable if they joined together in a federation of polities similar in character, as the Swiss and the Dutch had done. It was Montesquieu that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other Americans first studied when they contemplated this question.
This aspect of the situation is well-known. What I am about to say is, however, rarely noted. Federalism was not the only contribution that Montesquieu made to sorting out the problem posed by the establishment of a republic on an extended territory. In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu describes England in passing as “a republic concealed under the form of a monarchy”; and though he devotes the two longest chapters of the work to a study of England’s constitution and of the fashion in which it shapes the mores, manners, and national character of the English, he never – in any passage – says a word regarding the extent of territory to which the English form of government is suited.
Montesquieu’s silence in this regard can hardly be due to an oversight on his part – for he has earlier made it clear that this issue is paramount, and it was one of his principles as a writer that “silence sometimes expresses more than any discourse.” Moreover, at the very end of the book in which he discusses the constitution of England, he writes, “it is not necessary always to so exhaust a subject that one leaves nothing for the reader to do. The task is not to make him read but to make him think.” The inference that we should draw from Montesquieu’s silence on this particular occasion, and the inference which the Founding Fathers tacitly drew, was that a republic on the English model – equipped with a well-designed separation of its legislative, executive, and judicial powers – can be established in a territory of very considerable extent, as was, in fact, the case with England itself.
Of course, the Americans hedged their bets by embracing both of Montesquieu’s principles. They established a federation, made up of comparatively small republics, and they adopted a separation of powers both within the federal government and within the state governments, fortifying themselves in this fashion against the prospect that the sheer size of the territory encompassed by the United States of America would occasion frequent emergencies that would eventuate in a massive concentration of power in the central government.
This they did, and, of course, they did more. In the tenth number of The Federalist, as scholars have repeatedly pointed out, James Madison turned Montesquieu’s argument on its head, pointing to the fact that small republics were often subject to faction, and suggesting that religious and economic diversity on the scale likely in a polity established on an extended territory could actually serve to make it less prone to faction by reducing the likelihood that a majority faction would emerge. Just look at Rhode Island, the Federalists said; and of Rhode Island and, for that matter, Chicago, one could say the same today.
It would be tempting to suppose that the question whether one can sustain a republic on an extended territory is now closed. Thanks to federalism and the separation of powers, just such a republic has survived and flourished for more than 220 years.
But we now live in a time in which it is once again proper to raise this question – for, in the last century, frequent emergencies, both real and imagined, have eventuated in a massive concentration of power in the central government, and we have to a considerable extent abandoned both federalism and the separation of powers.
If Barack Obama finds it possible to run roughshod over the states, if he has taken over the automobile industry, and if he proposes to take over and administer our healthcare system, it is because the groundwork for the massive expansion in the administrative state that he hopes to achieve was laid by Woodrow Wilson. Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. It is hard to see how republican government can survive in a world of unfunded and partially funded mandates in which the federal government systematically turns the state governments into instruments of federal policy. It is hard to see how it can survive in a world in which the legislative power confers on administrative agencies the right to make regulations that have the force of law, the right to enforce those regulations, and the right to establish courts to adjudicate disputes arising from the enforcement of those regulations. To an ever-increasing degree, decisions that affect our lives are made in camera behind closed doors by women and men who are unaccountable. That is, as Montesquieu once pointed out, the very definition of despotism.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
140 Comments
"Are you serious?" That is Nancy Pelosi's take on federalism and anti-Federalism.
Most excellent article. It's too bad that Montesquieu is not read and studied these days. He's been replaced by TMZ, Dancing with the Stars, Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader, and all the other garbage on TV. Not to mention Xbox, Wii, iPods, Gameboys, and all the other video games that eat into time that used to be spent educating ourselves. It's a no wonder then why 83% of Americans fail tests on American History much less know who Montesquieu is. They can tell you who's doin who in Hollywood though, or which football team is winning the season, or can site lines from movies such as Terminator (I'll Be Back) – but have little or no knowledge of a Republican government. Everyone thinks America is a Democracy where majority rules. Far be it, we are a Republic where the law rules and even the majority has to follow the laws.
It is not possible for a republic to survive very long when it is insolvent. Unfortunately, we have started the "clock".
As a Historian, I deeply appreciate Mr. Rahe's insightful articles. I agree with him, our schools are failing to teach our students the classic political literature that shaped our nation. The progressive/socialist (they are one in the same, similar to catsup and ketchup) agenda is being taught to our students, and the works of Montesquieu, Burke, Locke, and Adams are ignored. History is being taught to our students that portrays the American experience as an malignant cancer upon the world, and students are stunned when they are told about the real facts. To demonstrate the sorry state of history consider this; The Organization of American Historians devoted a issue of its journal that portrayed the Black Panthers as an important Civil Rights movement. Crazy!!!! Again, thank you Mr. Rahe for introducing Montesquieu back into the political and historical conversation.
I have had this same debate recently with my two children….now 30 and 27…..and as you may know, a discussion on politics can become devisive between generations. Despite my strong conservative leaning and Republican position over their lifetimes….they were both brainwashed in our very "Socialists Democrat" public school system …..taught by Teachers loyal to both their unions and Sal Alinksky. Sooooooo……..I believe we have ourselves to blame for letting the school system redefine our liberties, and rewrite history books. The kids born after 1980 all believe our founders were wrong….and they believe they were terroritsts. Why? Because as you point out….this Progressive movement has been in place for almost 100 years…..and they have pushed a collectivists philosophy to the next generation — control the youth and you master the future.
The problem with Liberalism today is that it assumes the people are morons and must be taken care of by the Gov't.
The reality in America is that the Gov't are morons and must be taken care of by the people.
The difference is that Gov't resists everything while the people have to bend over and take it in the name of "patriotism" as defined by Nancy Pelosi.
And that "clock" is ticking a lot faster than it should be. Time to take it in for "repair."
Paul loves to do this… dose us up with his ethnocentric interpretation of history, and then make some quantum leap to demonstrate how Obama is determined to re-write the Constitution.
He pretends as though our country was a perfect political balance until Obama got into office, and now regional factions are bad. Regional government by political factions has been a fact of American life throughout our history and as worked pretty well. It is condescending and undemocratic to suggest that the voters of Chicago or Houston or Detroit or anywhere else don't vote in their own best interest. There are just as many right wing factions in power today as left. But it's unacceptable to you that you don't currently control the federal government. So you give us history lessons about dead French guys whose political writing you believe justifies your attempt to delegitimize a sitting president.
You don't like health care reform… we get it. But stop pretending like some evil left wing dictator has seized the reigns of power and is systematically thwarting the will of the people and can't be stopped without some kind of right wing revolution. It is disingenuous to say that the agenda of George Bush was the will of the people, but somehow Obama's agenda is unconstitutional.
We heard the same nonsense from Grandpa Rahe when Medicare was being debated in the 1960s. Just as he was wrong, so are you. And in the end you and your anti-democratic ideas will be footnotes in history.
Much of this healthcare bill IS unconstitutional. Just becase you choose to ignore truths that are inconviencent to you does not make them disappear. The constitution is a short and sweet little document. Give it a read sometime and see for yourself how the Corhusker Kickback and other special favors and targeted taxes are unconstitutional.
Congress has a long history of dramatically underestimating Medicare costs. "At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion," wrote Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson in a 1993 Reason article. "The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."
Oops. Seems all that criticism was correct. The same criticism they had over Bush's Medicare expansion, and the same criticism they have now.
This bill will be a budget buster for the Federal and State Gov'ts and a pocketbook buster for the people. It will not do what it says, it full of special favors and unconstitutional bull. You know it. I know it.
Mika to quote Mr. Rahe,
"If Barack Obama finds it possible to run roughshod over the states, if he has taken over the automobile industry, and if he proposes to take over and administer our healthcare system, it is because the groundwork for the massive expansion in the administrative state that he hopes to achieve was laid by Woodrow Wilson. Herbert Hoover, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon."
Mr. Rahe eloquently shows the pedigree of a movement of increased Federal power. I am am not sure why he choose to leave Teddy off the list. (That would be Roosevelt, although I could understand your confusion) The point is a there has been a long history of attempt to make the States subservient to the Federal level. Barack has used executive power and a weak empowering legislature in an unprecedented way (Delano had the will of a desperate and scared people behind him) to increase Federal power.
CONTINUED
Tytler's Law- attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouslee, a Scottish economic historian and colleague of Adam Smith:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, followed always by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
CONTINUED
It is a disease within the Democratic Party; the base has two wings. One that believes they are the chosen ones to lead us out of the valley of darkness and those who are willing to follow waiting for the crumbs that will fall off there betters plate. So Mika which are you? It is unfortunate for the Democratic plantation owners that the majority of Americans do seek information from more then one source. Much as the people put an end to the tyranny of slavery before. We will once again hopefully, before you wake up picking cotton (or schlepping votes) in a federally mandated "volunteer" plantation.
Nicely done. How do you survive in NYC
Did you read this article? It does not appear so from your comment. BHO is mentioned one time in the article and Rahe is discounting him as not being a factor at this point, just an instrument of predecessors.
To date BHO has shown himself as nothing more than a charismatic unqualified nincompoop. This fact is becoming more obvious to the public every day and he is only 1 year into it! Even the MSM isn't blindly following him at this point!
Rahe did not say anything about Bush, disingenuous or otherwise. I personally would have added him to Paul's list of BHO's historical enablers! Bush was probably the single person most responsible for BHO's successful election to the presidency. BHO did not understand that, and thought it was a mandate to finally fundamentally change the USA to a marxist form of goverment they have long awaited.
He is WRONG, and Mr Rahe needs to have more faith in Americans.
Because when the government steps in a tells that you have to buy a thing and also tells you how much you must pay for it, that is absolutely not in any way tyrrany. If they have the Constitutional power to mandate we all buy healthcare and how much we must pay for it, then why don't they have the power to make us all buy new hybrid cars next year, buy new houses built strictly to their standards, what types of groceries and how much of them we must buy, etc.
I have no doubt that once the opponents of health care reform are defeated in the legislature and the bill is signed into law, they will move the battle to the courts. They will use all the objections that you read about on right wing blogs. It is exactly what happened in the 1960s when Medicare was passed. That is why when legislators write a bill they sound so cold and calculating. Because they have to be written to fend off the inevitable court challenge. Democrats have very smart Constitutional lawyers whose job it is to see that opponents don't prevail in the courts. They are involved in the process at every step providing guidance to legislators. So it is unlikely that any part of this bill will be found to be unconstitutional.
If Medicare is under funded then we need to find a way to fund it. As for the Bush attempt to privatize Medicare with Medicare parts A and D, those were obvious giveaways to their insurance buddies and need to be reformed. Both reform bills eliminate Medicare Advantage saving the program hundreds of billions that would otherwise be paid out to the middle men in the insurance business.
I'll tell you what I know. I know that if we can afford to spend hundreds of billions on a war of convenience, we can afford universal health care for all Americans. It is our moral responsibility.
LOL…. I am a tough Italian girl with a mouth, that loves to debate. So NYC is always fun in the academic circles. One thing I have learnt is the progressives love to shout instead of relying on facts. So when I see them get all frustrated and stuttering, I have the silent chuckle.
Kristine, (and any others interested) – I will be starting an Early US History online course (free) in the near future on my site, and would love your input and knowledge.
This is a fantastic article and definitely highlights things that aren't being taught, or force fed to students to spit back out on to standard test forms in the schools today. And sadly most adults couldn't care less, they just want to know what they are going to get, how they are going to benefit.
No doubt elections have serious consequences and as a society we have indeed brought this upon ourselves. It is true that the foundation for this was laid over time, starting 100 years ago. It could very well take 100 years to repair AND maybe we can't at this point. The single question that must be answered today by citizen is:
"Do you believe in what this country used to stand for and is it worth the energy and pain to restore it?"
I am a yes and I believe we must prepare for painful times ahead. If no, then I suspect we may start to see family run "American" restaurants popping up all over the world in countries that allow immigration.
Since when is it a "moral responsibility" to force others to spend their money in ways that are not beneficial to them?
The wars (sic)"of convenience" that you speak of with such revulsion cost 10's and 100's of billions of dollars. Your Health care reform will cost 1.6 Trillion dollars over ten years. The war will eventually end. Can you say the same for this disaster of a health care bill? No. If you have your way, these cost will continue to mount just as Medicare and Social Security have done.
Actually, we can say that this mandated program will end, because it is unsustainable and everyone knows it. That's what you Cloward-Piven types are counting on. Don't hide behind the word morality. There's nothing moral about spending money you don't have on things you don't need. This is all about seizing power and socializing America.
What do you think the auto industry takeover was all about? They'd like to force you to buy hybrids by removing the competition from the market place. Same thing with health care. Any economist, Keynesian or Smith, will tell you that removing competition from the marketplace kills an economy. That's the end game for the Obama crowd. Tear down capitalism and build a socialist empire on it's ashes. This is all about power over and control of the population by an elite few.
"And sadly most adults couldn't care less, they just want to know what they are going to get, how they are going to benefit."
So, your main premise is that our problems stem from a lack of morality in society (a selfish nature)? Ironic. I have been saying this for twenty years or more.
Crazy is right, having lived through that period the Black Panthers, the SDS were at the time mere co-opters of real political movements. They were nothing but anoyances to the movements and ralling points for oppostions. I thougth we would never have either of their legacies of hate surface again in any serious way. I like many others missed the radicalization of our educational system. The new Democratic party has made it all to evident.
'All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.'
Thomas Jefferson
Thats refreshing, intelligent civil, discourse without any vulgar epithets.
Than You Mr. Rahe, for another enlightening piece.
Not all of us. Not quite. Some of us kept our BS detectors turned on.
Good to see a historian chime in.
"History is being taught to our students" Well can we really call it history? It looks and smells of propaganda. Why do these people hate the USA so much? And if they hate it so much why don't they just leave it?
The USA is not theirs to give away to the world. And this is a point that we must make this year. Peacefully or not.
Dude. Exactly how much did they estimate Medicare would cost? And how much did it really cost?
Yes. It is that "brand" of mathematics that works at DailyKos and MoveOn. In the real world it equals hogwash.
"It is our moral responsibility." Oh right. You "know?" Move to Greece.
Mikatollah…. I would never assume that your opinions are uniformed. Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, the history I have learned is different form yours. But that is the beauty of history. We can all read the same words, but come to different conclusions. Which I might add, is the beauty of western civilization, each Individual is free to decide the truth of their own convictions. ;0)
I did read the entire article. And his partisan political shot at the end was the whole point of his post. I know you may not be able to see that, but just know that there are as many interpretations of intent as there are people on this blog, of which mine is just one.
They are already. The American restaurants in other parts of the world.
You are twisting my words. It is a moral responsibility for a society to provide affordable universal health care to it's citizens. The was we meet that responsibility is sending people to ERs to get the most expensive health care there is. Where we have failed is in providing affordable primary care to everyone.
Your responsibility of citizenship doesn't go away because it is inconvenient or you don't like it. Whether you choose to meet it or not, it remains.
I know lots of folks who choose not to purchase health care and just take the risk. What risk? If they get sick or hit by a car we pay for it. If a person is healthy enough to hold down a job they should have to pay their way.
I hide behind nothing. My words are out there for anyone to see. You can even see me if you want to click on my moniker and go to my website.
I've had the same conversations with my children, one of them a devout socialist and almost communist. No matter what logical arguments I present, I am totally lamblasted as a fool that can't see the future. This from a person with a PHD. My heart feels heavy but the school system that educated her did the damage and I don't know how to undo it.
Sorry Dave, you're stuck with me. I don't know anyone in Greece.
Well said…
It was not "people" who put an end to slavery. It was progressives, and other fair minded people who saw the status quo as unacceptable and fought to change their society. Much as we do today.
My son went out with his high school friends who are finishing college, he said from what he saw none turned into libs while in college.
We disagree on the rightful role of the central government. So let's both make our case to the voters and may the best ideas win. Democracy is a beautiful thing.
It was simplistic and ignored any explanation for why the expansion of government occurred. He starts it out with an emotional appeal to people on this insinuating that the president has a goal of "run roughshod over the states".
Central government has a legitimate function in our society, and as the world changes that function is going to change with it. I can't tell you how many people on list have complained to me about FDR and the New Deal. But the growth of government during the 1930s in response to the depression prepared us to meet the demands of WWII. The "arsenal of democracy" was created with the infrastructure of the New Deal.
The states are inferior to the Federal Government. It is written right into the Constitution. Whether they are "subservient" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't believe that is the case.
FDR had his problems with a difficult congress. The votes for his agenda were certainly not unanimous. But like I said earlier, his effort to increase the size and function of government may have saved us from the Nazis and Japanese.
Thanks.
I feel your pain copper. My oldest e-mailed some photos to me during the campaign of her and her mother at a Sarah Palin rally. Nearly broke her old dad's heart.
[...] Excerpt from: » The Survival of the Republic: A Second Reason for Reading … [...]
[...] Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | // [...]
"The kids born after 1980 all believe our founders were wrong…."
I was born after 1980, I don't think they were wrong, and I wasn't even born in the US.
While there is the wonky progressive slant in American universities (at least in the humanities) I start asking questions when profs start telling me how to think. I'm not alone either. When you have to write a pro-communist paper in order to get an A you start to get really skeptical about anything coming out of a prof's mouth.
While I appreciate the "schools are failing" sentiment, and there is of course a heavy progressive slant in universities, I think at some point we all have to consider that the major driving force behind education has got to be family. If we're content to let public education (and university) handle the education of our children without family taking an active role, I don't find it hard to believe that a nation of freedom loving citizens can be turned into a communist one. I myself constantly had my parents (quite annoyingly at the time I might add) challenge me beyond what was taught in school.
Beyond anything relating to politics, culturally the biggest deficiency I think America has is family. When I first came to this country I was the -only- girl with parents that weren't divorced in class. With so many broken families I'm not surprised the values of one generation don't pass to the next.
There is hope though, a lot people my age tend to be quite skeptical about what's being forced fed to them.
I think I'll hand this out to my college class this semester. Thank you. It's nice to have a forum for conservative professors here at Big Government.
Mika
Thanks for the response! Of course the last paragraph was the point. I personally have been enjoying the 'history lesson' posted by Rahe! I'm 67 years young and was educated in the public school system in USA when it was a USA politic system. I loved my childhood intellectual freedom!
I have only been barely aware of the Progressive movemnt until Obama!
I have had 'first hand visual experience with the Communist movement comparing, farming and food production across a barbed wire fence separating free and communist nations! Progressivism is a Cruel joke!
But then again, it's all just philosophy!
Hi
Hey! I saw that in East Berlin in 1970's. The apartments in tall buildings we're all built by foreign contractors since the USSR couldn't build them with thier 'workers', since they didn't work! They only had to pay $78 USD a month for the 2 room apartment! EVERYONE had the same 2 room apartment!
As a Biological Scientist on tour all I could think of was a colony of "Ants". Humans have evolved much further than colonial insects (I think????)
I realize this wasn't in the scope of Rahe's article but perhaps part of the problem of then vs. now is that the British republic then didn't have universal suffrage. Should turning 18 or staying out of prison be the sole criteria for voting? Common sense tells me that mature government demands mature voters and part of maturity is working for what you get. Including the ability to vote. And no, I am not saying we should go back to old standards of enfranchisement. But students learn when they want to learn, not when you sit them down in a class. I took civics as in high school but I don't remember anything I learned there. What knowledge I have of our shared history, culture, and government comes from what I have studied as an adult.
I'm just saying…
I was just in Greece. you should move there. That's where your liberal ideals were manifested — ever read Plato?? So…….50% of the US citizens that do not pay taxes should have a vote? They contribute nothing…..just that sucking sound…..and subsidized sect 8 housing, food stamps, SSI, disability, Medicaid, school lunch programs, welfare, free emergency room care, subsidized utilities for heat — in NYC this totals almost 45 to 50 thousand dollars a year. With this type of subsidized lifestyles as payback for DemoRat votes……it's no wonder you all think Obamacare should be a Right……cause those of us that can afford it now must pay for all those you choose to reward for your future constituency….don't ya know. Welcome to Chicago style politics, where the Aldermen hand out cash for votes……same thing. But, not to worry….those 3,000 abortions per day will be funded for those "Pro Choice" women that should be prosecuted for murder. Where is the right to healthcare for these babies that will not get their Obamacre, at the expense of giving it to the illegal aliens.
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." – Samuel Adams
good for you………
what climate change??? are you kidding??? look at your galactic maps and please note the solar flares and magnetic energy flexing from our sun causing orbular waves on earth….thus more directly influencing our weather…which has taken place for millions of years……please note that our galaxy also orbits and interracts within and around many other galaxies in the universe….thus creating the 100,000 cycles that influence the earth's weather patterns as our galaxy makes it's orbit. Don't believe all that crap from the so called Peer Group scientists that draw their sum total conclusions from 200 years of measured temps. plotted on that fraudulant hockey stick graph.
Wow!
What do you advocate when fossil fuels run out? Nuclear? Bio crop failures? hydrocarbon fuels (CO2 generating fuels will run out in the 'blink of an eye' so why belabor it! Oil and even the price of getting coal out of the ground are over for the human race. Where do we go from here? That will happen a long time before 'global warming' comes. The world has gone on for about 4 billion years! You and I have a lot of nerve commenting on it's possible end. The human condition will change as a result of our being 'rushed' into everything!
Spend just a little time studying and 'supporting' your proclamations!
The next time you cash a social security check or make a claim on Medicare, think about the security they have provided in your life. Think about the risks you have been able to take, knowing that if you fail you will still be able to feed your family. If you were to die early, there would be support available for those who survive you. These are progressive ideas that were fought for and won by our parents and grandparents.
This is our time. We have been called on to make universal health care a reality. The failure of private insurance to provide affordable coverage for all Americans has forced our hand and now we must demand action. Fifty years from now people will look back at us and see that when it was our time, we took action. They will be facing new and different challenges, but they will know that their parents and grandparents stood up for the common good.
In my opinion, that is Progressivism. It is putting the philosophical ideas into action.
You are one angry guy jimbob.
Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that.
Sir you obviously do not know your history. The reason that the "dead French Guy", and other political philosophers of the era, is important is because the founders of this nation used their idea to come up with a remarkable form of government. Mr. Rahe did not single out Obama as trying to overturn this nations principles alone, but he did correctly identify that the progressive movement, of which the President identifies with, is trying to. The Progressive, Socialist, Nazis, and Communist ideology stem from the ideas of Rousseau, Robespierre, and other French Revolutionary thinkers that stressed a communitarian ideal of government. Basically, this means a "leadership" would lead the "people" to provide equality for all, and the citizens would subsume their individuality for the greater need of the state. (think of a beehive, all the workers serving the queen bee for the continuation of the hive.) Whereas, the political thinkers like Montesquieu, Burke, Locke, and Adams perceived government as limited and the individual be allowed to pursue their personal interests. This formula works best, because it allows individuals to be inventive, free, and allows for the fruit of their labors to benefit the community in general. Before you go on about how this is ethno-centric (Progressive code word for racist), I will agree with you. Western Civilization, particularly after Christianity, sees the individual as an individual, while all other cultures perceive their people as "worker drones" or members of a tribe. In short, despotic. Historical examples abound, Persian satrapys, submissive Islamic nations, the elite of the chinese dynasty, despotic Aztec and Incan kingdom. I could go on, but I think the point as been made. Sir, I recommend you study your history, American and World.
Jim you are living proof that it is not what you know, it's what you know that ain't so…
again, we disagree.
What I advocate is we make a national commitment to alternative fuels. I like wind and solar turbines, nuclear, hydro and thermal were available. Anything that doesn't produce carbon as a by-product.
I want to see a commitment to electric cars and R&D on hydrogen technology. I want to harness the power of the Sun with micro solar technology for our homes.
The Earth may be 4 billion years old, but for most of that time it was uninhabitable for plant and animal life. The history of human civilization is less than 20,000 years old and that is what is at stake. The Earth will still be here a million years from now. I would like to see us on board.
Would love to participate on an Early US History Course. I can be reached at Kris0822@ksu.edu.
CONTINUED
Mika your argument points to an elitist tendency to simplify an argument to a schoolyard mentality.
"It is disingenuous to say that the agenda of George Bush was the will of the people, but somehow Obama's agenda is unconstitutional." (Bush did it too)
Bush had the will of the people behind him (not all conservatives but certainly a populist plurality) in his expansions of federal powers (Homeland Security, TSA, Medicare Expansion, SCHIP, No Child Left Behind), of these only SCHIP and No Child Left Behind would be considered federal expansion through mandate. In both of those cases, the mandates were funded (a reciprocal agreement of Federal to State authority). Barack had no populist cry for take over of; banks, industries, or unfunded mandates of “Health Care Reform”. Barack instead relies on his arrogant elitist argument that the people are too naive to know what is good for them.
CONTINUED
We like to pretend that our capitalistic system is somehow at risk because of our social safety net. That somehow Conservative Republicans are champions of capitalism while Democrats want to destroy it. It's all nonsense.
Capitalism almost destroyed itself in 1930 and it was a Democrat who saved it from it's own accesses. In the last ten years we have embarked on a deregulation frenzy that brought us to the brink of financial collapse.
I'll say it again. Well regulated capital markets are the finest economic engine in the history of man. But every time we get greedy and start to believe we can improve efficiencies by ignoring oversight we pay for it in the end. There are no free markets without rules, and rules are useless without oversight. That is a legitimate function of government.
Thanks for your post Kristine. I can tell you are just as passionate about your politics as I am. But don't assume that because we don't agree that my opinions are uninformed by history.
'A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.'
Thomas Jefferson
What about the regulators who get greedy?
I'm sure it's hard to think of any right now.
Capitalism is only capitalism when left alone.
That the progressives now in power have turned a deaf ear to the great unwashed masses is arrogance supreme and evidence that they believe they've achieved a position that affords them the 'right' to rule. My great grandfather spoke of his contempt for Roosevelt and his statist allies and, with uncanny accuracy, predicted what eventually would become of this great nation. Though I don't wish it and pray for an alternative, I believe a stubborn resistance and ultimately revolution, violent if necessary, is our only option if we're to bring this nation back from the brink. There truly is a conservative majority in this country. Let your voices be heard!
You make me read between the lines to get to your point: You think that regulators are bad and capital markets are better left to themselves… how am I doing?
Everybody loves the game and nobody likes the ref. In football when your team is winning you say, "Just let em play". But then one of those bast-ards on the other team sticks his finger in your QBs eye. Now you need someone to come in and enforce the rules or you are going to lose.
In the gave of life, like it or not, government enforces the rules. From speed limits to anti-trust violations. If you get a bad ref you put him on a shorter rope… you do not let the home team enforce the rules (ok, that was one too many football metaphors).
Dave…. Amen to that brother!!! Like I always try to convey to my fellow Historians, do not judge the actions of our ancestors on our beliefs, Humankind always has to inform their actions on the basis of the facts known to them at the time.
I never said it should be free. Just affordable and available. But it is a moral responsibility or else we would let people die on the streets. We don't. We have laws that require ERs to treat people who show up injured or sick.
The government will not mandate you buy a hybrid, but they should mandate that cars sold in the United States get better fuel economy, and for a variety of reasons… climate change and fuel independence are two of the most pressing. Now car makers may decide the best way to meet those standards is with hybrid technology. And that is how capitalism works.
I'd rather read than type.
You got my point.
I do enjoy your posts,(mostly 180 degrees from my way of thinking)
I'll just refer you to your reply to Jim below.
Ahhh kooz… you made me look. Good one.
Patrick, if you are going to advocate for violent overthrow of a duly elected sitting president, don't publish it on a blog! You need to be sneaky about it. Have four or five like minded Patriots over to the house for "cookies" and get to putting together some ied's and molotov cocktails. Then adjourn in time for the 10 o'clock news and swear everyone to secrecy. Trust me, they'll never see you coming.
Let us know how that works out for ya.
Capitalism works when the consumer buys a product he wants.
No government involved.
I don't advocate a violent overthrow of anyone but merely see what might be one of any eventual outcomes based on historical precedent, like the birth of this nation. About the status of our 'duly' elected president? Hmm, guess we'll never know for sure. But, as life is unpredictable, any or all things could transpire to alter our future and save us from ourselves and, like most liberty loving guys, I don't like being told what to do. Your attempt to humor me is noted and appreciated but I never said anything that would give anyone, besides J Edgar Napolitano, cause to suspect that I am anything other than a concerned, albeit passionate, citizen whose been around this world of ours and doesn't want to see us descend into a third-world sh*thole. Besides, pre-emption is not my forte.
Dont know about revolution cause the adminstration seems to be doing a grand job of torpedoing its own cause.
This thread about republic versus despots underlies discussions about everything else : voter registration fraud, national security, health care, deficit spending. Everything.
Polling clearly indicates this is still a center-right country. Yet progressives somehow wound up controlling all branches of government. How did that happen? MSM was obviously a big help, essentially functioning as a propaganda outlet rather than a journalistic watchdog. For decades, liberal educators have ignored or misrepresented history ons so that new crops of young voters arrive brainwashed, destined to relearn lessons of history from bitter experience. Finally, voter fraud put progressives over the top for any remaining close races.
Having obtained majorities in all branches of government, progressives are quickly ramming through radical policies with little regard for public opinion despite an imminent mid-term election. Why not more concern about voter backlash? Besides everything mentioned in the preceding paragraph, they're using existing majorites to cement power by grabbing control of industry, finance, health care, by massive doling out of taxpayer money to special interests and cronies, census jiggering and widening of voter fraud.
Despotic tyrants? Oh yeah.
Real laws can sustain infinity. Liberty is infinite, in nature. Our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution are fine examples of infinite law. If you ask me, we aught to write a Second Declaration of Independence, with grievances against the tyranny we suffer from those who are our own citizens, and governments. Tyranny is a damnation of the human spirits power. Liberty, the opposite.
& you can hide your head in a bible all day long, but if you fail to confront the real evil in the United States of America, you will undoubtedly sustain some kind of human hell.
Democrats did win truly remarkable congressional victories in 2006 and 2008. I have to disagree with you on some of your analysis though… George W. Bush had far more to do with these wins than MSNBC or ACORN. You got to admit he dorked things up pretty good. All the Dems had to do was keep saying his name over and over and it almost didn't matter who they were running against. Voter fatigue had set in and big changes were inevitable.
Don't fall for the voter fraud talking point. Nothing has ever come of it and it takes your eye off the ball. I'll tell you what the Dems are going to do in 2010… they are going to the well one last time and run against George W. Bush. Should be fun.
Can you hear yourself? You are equating law with morality. If morality were equal to law, we would be executing abortion participants (other than the innocent party) and homosexuals. Also, we DO let people die in the streets every day. They are called the homeless.
I suppose you'd like to give them all affordable housing? Oh, wait. We already tried that, didn't we? Gee, isn't that what caused the housing bubble in the first place? Yep. Liberals like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd put us right in the middle of this economic disaster by forcing the banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford homes.
I have some news for all the liberals out there. You are not going to live forever. You are going to die, and throwing other people's money at the "problem" is not going to change the outcome. You do not have a Constitutional Right to "affordable" health care. You never did and you still don't.
What is affordable, anyway? A wino thinks a Big Mac is unaffordable, yet that next bottle of Ripple is a justifiable expense. "Affordable" is a relative term.
As for available, you have already made my case for me that it is, in fact, available. Walk in to any ER in the country with a life threatening injury or condition and see if you don't get immediate treatment regardless of your ability to pay. That is more due to the Hippocratic Oath than to any law that may or may not be on the books, although frivolous malpractice law suits probably do factor in to the equation .
This "health care reform bill" is not about any of that. It's about Big Government getting it's greedy hands further into your pockets and tightening it's grip around your neck. If this bill becomes law, I guarantee you your quality and availability of care will decrease and your costs will increase. The insurance and big pharma companies will make even bigger profits than before, and we will foot the bill.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to illustrate the many fallacies and falsehoods of your argument.
Can you hear yourself? You are equating law with morality. If morality were equal to law, we would be executing abortion participants (other than the innocent party) and homosexuals. Also, we DO let people die in the streets every day. They are called the homeless.
I suppose you'd like to give them all affordable housing? Oh, wait. We already tried that, didn't we? Gee, isn't that what caused the housing bubble in the first place? Yep. Liberals like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd put us right in the middle of this economic disaster by forcing the banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford homes.
I have some news for all the liberals out there. You are not going to live forever. You are going to die, and throwing other people's money at the \”problem\” is not going to change the outcome. You do not have a Constitutional Right to \”affordable\” health care. You never did and you still don't.
What is affordable, anyway? A wino thinks a Big Mac is unaffordable, yet that next bottle of Ripple is a justifiable expense. \”Affordable\” is a relative term.
As for available, you have already made my case for me that it is, in fact, available. Walk in to any ER in the country with a life threatening injury or condition and see if you don't get immediate treatment regardless of your ability to pay. That is more due to the Hippocratic Oath than to any law that may or may not be on the books, although frivolous malpractice law suits probably do factor in to the equation .
This \”health care reform bill\” is not about any of that. It's about Big Government getting it's greedy hands further into your pockets and tightening it's grip around your neck. If this bill becomes law, I guarantee you your quality and availability of care will decrease and your costs will increase. The insurance and big pharma companies will make even bigger profits than before, and we will foot the bill.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to illustrate the many fallacies and falsehoods of your argument.
Every time I see someone ELSE cash one of those checks (I don't), I think of the stolen opportunities that will never materialize for me because my government thought it would be a good idea to take my opportunity and give it to someone else based on the false assumption that they know better than me how to plan for my future.
This isn't philosophy. It is sophistry designed to justify your Communist agenda.
God bless Adam Smith! May Maynard Keynes rot in hell!
Wow. You really have yourself convinced of your own moral superiority, don't you? It must be nice to go through life so totally full of shit and not even notice it! What dumpster did you throw your conscience into?
Alright, one last one. This is a copy of a post of mine from 8 or 9 days ago responding to a similar numbnut:
Rudy,
Please let us know how the interview with the FBI goes. I am sure they will have a lot of questions for you regarding your post. Or maybe you will be the test case for Interpol? We don't kill our politicians, we vote them out or charge them with a crime and impeach/convict them. I feel your pain, but this is just the kind of thing the other side will use to paint us as nut-jobs. Do you really believe our military and law enforcement community will just blindly follow orders? I know a number of both and they are intelligent, patriotic people, not mindless thugs. Relax, have a beer… We are strong enough to survive these idiots, especially since they have finally revealed who they truly are.
Yeah, you goaded the DF with more sarcasm, but the point is the same, no?
Morality is the absence of suffering. All other "morality" is false morality designed to control people. It gets complicated on a political level because we are forced to make choices that are both moral and amoral.
The cost of health care and how we pay for it is a difficult problem. If we approach it from a moral position the goal is to limit suffering. If we approach it as an economic endeavor the goal is to make a profit for shareholders. We have tried a combination of both and it has ended up leaving huge gaps in coverage. That is why we are going to pass health care reform.
Walk into an ER to treat your child's ear infection and it winds up costing six times what it would if primary care was available. The ER is just a convenient place for profiteers to funnel the uninsured. They then get to justify greater premiums to those of us who have insurance and still claim the Medicaid payments from the government. It is one of the major causes of exploding costs.
Your opinion of the health care bill doesn't concern me. It is not the bill that I would have chosen, but it is a start. And the dirty little secret (and your biggest fear) is that it is the first step to Medicare part E (everybody). You heard it here first.
Well you are just a regular mountain man. The rest of us have formed a society and seek common protection from unpredictable hazards. It allows us to be more productive when we can focus on our responsibility.
You may not be eligible to receive direct benefits yet. But you probably don't have to cut a check to your grandmother each month. When she goes into the home, her assets will quickly be depleted and she will turn to Medicaid, saving you even more money. If you live long enough you will receive the promised benefits. If you don't, well, life is just not always fair.
Each moral question is an opportunity to make a choice. I have often asked myself, what would I have done had I lived in the time of slavery? I like to think I would have opposed it. But would I have fought it? Would I have risked everything to put an end to the most evil institution in the history of our nation.
I just don't know…
Kristine, Thank you for your excellent responses in this blog!
My wife is a tough Italian too! She is from the Port Chester, just outside of NYC. Just wanted to add that she joins you in that "silent chuckle!"
Time will tell, but I fear that the MARXIST have WON AMERICA!
YOU GET IT!!!
You're Close!!!
This is suppose to be Republic, not a Democracy!
Patrick, hope that you are right, but I don't think that you are! The 60's happened, Man! We're over the cliff heading for a hard "CRASH" landing!
Hey, It works for the Islam Terrorists, doesn't it?
We are indeed a Republic… a Democratic Republic.
So true! In fact, you very soon probably will see government "action" very similar to what China's Mao Tse Tung did in China! He is the present "idol" of our government, you know ("Mao" murdered over 70,000,000 people)? Even Hitler was voted in power! That infinite law didn't work out too well for Germany, either (He killed over 6,000,000) Jews, it's said.
Remember, our forefathers spoke of "equality" and had "slaves," so I would not put too much stock in their ideas either!
I don't know vic… they live in caves and I live in a warm, kozy cottage. Remember what they say… Living well is the best revenge.
I suspect that our home-grown terrorists would suffer the same fate as the Islamic guys.
Wrong again, my Communist adversary.
Morality:
1.)The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2.)A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3.)Virtuous conduct.
4.)A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
You don't get to redefine the English language to justify your socialist argument. There is no mention of suffering or not suffering. As a matter of fact, to adhere to morality often involves suffering. Something you obviously know little or nothing about.
The insurance companies do not realize a profit from doctors treating uninsured patients. If anything, it is the hospital that raises rates on everyone because of this. Douche bags that take their kid to the ER for an ear infection and deadbeat the bill ought to have their ass beat and go to jail. That's what Medic-1 and free clinics are for.
You keep telling yourself that you and your Commie friends are going to win. Whatever gets you through the night. If it gets passed, it will be repealed. Many who helped force it on the Nation will end up rotting in jail before they rot in Hell. You heard it here first.
And you are a pompous urban dandy who has never been in harms way a day in his life. You couldn't pour pee out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.
A man who would trade freedom for security deserves neither.
By the time I am eligible for Social Security benefits (which I was forced to contribute to against my will all my life), you Commies will have long since bankrupted this country if you have your way. If that day should come, you'd better pray that all the "mountain men" don't start hunting you Commies down one by one.
Security is an illusion and a lie.
You must be logged in to post a comment.