Remember this video?

Though this clip was replayed again and again- a sign that Americans were “awakened” as a result of the realization that President Obama and the liberal Democrats were, indeed, on the path to “fundamentally transform” the nation- the sad, but accurate, phrase used by the woman speaking is, “sleeping giant.” Conservative America has been a “sleeping giant.”

Most Americans describe themselves as “conservative.” And conservatives, by nature, tend to mind their own business. Unless, of course, their “own business” is being run over by a controlling, liberal president and his cronies.

American conservatives have indeed had to rouse themselves out of a somewhat complacent sleep and get to work. They have done so formidably, as evidenced by the election, in 2010, of a large number of conservative members of Congress. But, more work awaits, and time is fleeting.

(more…)

In their recent Politico article, “Constitution is inherently progressive,” John Podesta (former chief of staff to President Clinton and current president of the Center for American Progress) and John Halpin argue that the “values” of the Constitution are progressive, not conservative, and that conservatives should stop claiming that progressivism is at odds with the Constitution. “Since our nation’s founding,” the authors claim, “progressives have drawn on the Declaration of Independence’s inspirational values of human liberty and equality in their own search for social justice and freedom.”  The progressive “framework” of public-private cooperation, they continue, is “the essence of the constitutional promise of a never-ending search for ‘a more perfect union.’”  In short, the progressive “vision” of the Constitution best represents the American tradition. This argument, which is part of recent progressive efforts to rehabilitate their constitutional bona fides, might come as a surprise to the real founders of progressivism, for while some contemporary progressives might preach a Declaration-based faith and try to get right with the Constitution, early progressives had little use for either document.

According to Woodrow Wilson, what he called the “preface” of the Declaration of Independence—the part about “self-evident truths,” “unalienable rights” given to human beings by the Creator, and the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—was not the “real Declaration of Independence.”  If you want to understand that, Wilson said, “do not repeat the preface.”  For Wilson, the point of the Declaration—and the Constitution, too—was not the permanence of any principles.  “No doubt,” he wrote, “we are meant to have liberty, but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is.”  The Founders, early progressives held, wrote for their own time in our first documents, but not for future generations. For Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, Frank Goodnow and other founding fathers of progressivism, the Constitution of the American Founding was an obstacle to be overcome.  Insisting that the Constitution must be interpreted in view of the new but increasingly dominant Darwinian model of constant change, progressives pronounced our Constitution a “living” document.  The Constitution, they believed, is as malleable as human nature itself.  The Founders’ old ideas about separation of powers could be discarded in favor of new and improved notions of “enlightened administration.”

Podesta and Halpin allege that conservatives “often mask social Darwinism . . . in a cloak of liberty,” but in fact it is progressivism whose roots run deepest in the political ideology of Darwinism.  The fittest among us, it turns out, are the bureaucrats, empowered by a Constitution whose original restraints, like federalism and the limitations imposed by enumerated powers, have been stripped by progressives in favor of a more “dynamic” model.

(more…)

Congressman Mike Pence spoke at Hillsdale College Monday night at the invitation of the Young Republicans. I attended the dinner held in his honor before the talk, briefly chatted with him, and listened with care and interest to his talk – which had as its subject “the Presidency and the Constitution.”

Pence, who has represented Indiana’s ninth district in Congress since 2001, attended Hanover College not far from Madison, Indiana – where my grandfather once owned a dry goods store. There, I knew, he had studied with my friend G. M. Curtis. On that ground alone, I figured that he might be worth hearing.

Pence is exceptionally articulate. Before entering Congress, he had done a six-year-long stint as a talk-radio host. In Congress, he emerged quickly as a conservative leader. To his great credit, he voted against two initiatives pressed by George W. Bush – No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit – and, in 2005, he was unanimously elected the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Group.

In 2006, Pence ran against John Boehner for the post of minority leader in the House, calling for the Republican Party to return to its “small-government ideology,” and he lost. Two years later, however, in a move suggestive of Pence’s stature and of Boehner’s wiliness, the new minority leader recruited his onetime rival to head the House Republican Conference Group. For this office, Pence ran unopposed.

Pence’s lecture Monday night was impressive.

(more…)

Big Government would not exist were it not given sanction by the people.  Those who continue to support it have been duped in large part as a direct or indirect result of the ideological subversion of our academic institutions.  The leaders in all fields of our society were raised in the politically correct, militantly liberal academy, and so it is only natural that the influence of socialist ideas has infected every aspect of our culture.  In so doing, academia has produced leaders that undermine our society rather than helping it to flourish.

It is evident that educational institutions are turning society on its head when we see the kinds of leaders they herald as the shining examples for our students to follow.  On May 17th of this year, the graduating students of Columbia University will spend their morning listening to their Class Day speaker, Benjamin Jealous.  Readers may recall that Mr. Jealous penned a piece for the Huffington Post in which he ardently defended and praised Van Jones, calling him “an American treasure.”  He is being called on to speak because he is a star in the social justice movement.

For as Columbia’s Dean puts it, “Columbia’s undergraduate experience is built on the idea that our college must not only help students develop their capacities for critical thinking, but also nurture in them the responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic society. Benjamin Todd Jealous wonderfully personifies the value that Columbians have long placed on active engagement in the world and in finding the solutions to society’s challenges.”  Jealous does so by leading what he refers to as “a volunteer army for social change” in the NAACP.  That he would describe the organization in such a light should come as no surprise as Jealous is a former New York community organizer and AFL-CIO spokesman.

Mr. Jealous’ address to my class will mark a fitting end to my four years at Columbia in which I witnessed the attack on members of the Minutemen, the speech of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a professor pushing for students to join the peace corps in the middle of his science class and Israeli Apartheid Week amongst innumerable other travesties.

(more…)

“The constitution was thus conceived as a protection of the people against all arbitrary action, on the part of the legislative as well as the other branches of government. A constitution which in such manner is to limit government must contain what in effect are substantive rules…It must lay down general principles which are to govern the acts of the appointed legislature.”

So wrote Friedrich Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty a half century ago. He went on to say that: “A group of men normally become a society not by giving themselves laws but by obeying the same rules of conduct. This means that the power of the majority is limited by those commonly held principles and that there is no legitimate power beyond them.”

It is sad that Congress celebrated the 50th anniversary of Hayek’s work by ignoring any pretense that its power is limited. It is clear the Obama administration and the Democrat majority in Congress does not feel that the temporary majority is to be bound by any general principle other than “do you have the votes.” The 2000+page health care bill goes so far beyond what this country was founded on that it is difficult to know where to begin.

The bill is meant to involve the federal government in every nook and cranny of American life. Employers are told by their government what benefits they must provide employees. If we accept the proposition that the majority may tell employers and employees what their benefit package is, then where is the limitation that restricts this to health care?

If the auto insurance companies have sufficient lobbying power, then we will be told that our benefit package must include auto insurance as well. And why not require employers to provide membership in health clubs, or country clubs? I personally would prefer season tickets to University of Michigan basketball games.

(more…)

James Sensnbrenner (R-WI), Ranking Republican on the House’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (really), issued a warning last week about Kyoto II. The proposal is being tugged by that vast majority of the world, rejecting its constraints, but demanding, at present count, $140 billion per year from U.S. taxpayers in atonement for past, present and future damage from weather which our government now says is our fault.  It includes this gem from leading Kyoto free-rider (in perpetuity), major greenhouse gas emitter India:

India’s government says that the West owes billions of dollars to developing nations to compensate for climate change. In its submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Indian government argued that this funding should be a legal obligation that ‘cannot be subject to decisions of developed country governments or legislatures.

Oh, dear. Re-read that demand. Such an entanglement would, of course, be problematic. Barring further surprises from the current Supreme Court, we have to assume it surely would be found unconstitutional. For example, from Jeremy Rabkin’s recent talk to Hillsdale College reprinted in the July/August Imprimis:

(more…)