Posts Tagged ‘Jefferson’

D.L. Adams

Federalists, Whigs and Progressives

by D.L. Adams

As our imperious head of state takes his most recent ill-timed vacation and the stock market falls, the ranks of unemployed Americans grows, and crises and commotions remain unresolved the dustbin of history is being prepared.

Anger at failed leftist policies and leadership from the American black left in the guise of Representative Maxine Waters of the Black Congressional Caucus and the growing American black right as represented by Congressman Allen West of Florida appear to show that a flash point has been reached.

The founders used the term “experiment in self-government” to describe the new nation they had created because they had no expectation that it would be permanent, only a hope that it would be. The founders understood that nothing is stable across the ages but for change – therefore, they made our system of government flexible.

Maxine Water’s legitimate abandonment complaints about the president’s recent big-black-bus tour across several mid-western states were that no black communities had been visited. Allen West said on August 18th “I’m here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the underground railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.” Congressman West was referring to the Democratic party and the failed liberal policies that it espouses by his use of the term “plantation”.  Both West and Waters, representatives of black America from two opposing political worldviews agree on this point that the Democratic party and its progressive liberal policies have been a great disappointment, if not a complete failure.

The simultaneous disaffection and anger of Waters and West (and those they represent) signals an end to the paradigm of the Democratic party as the sole political defender of the black community and thus the likely demise of the now definitively failed political ideologies of progressivism and fantasist Utopianism.

(more…)

Larry Schweikart

What Would the Founders Say About Libya?

by Larry Schweikart

Recent developments in the Middle East seem to have a new or unique quality. For the first time, “ordinary” people appear to be rising up against oppressive and even tyrannical regimes. This is, of course, desirable on a number of levels. Somewhat distressing, however, is the little-discussed fact that many (though certainly not all) of these “ordinary people” have clear and unmistakable ties to America’s most bitter enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

Whatever U.S. policy is—and currently, it appears that even the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense cannot get on the same page, let alone develop a united strategy with allies—it needs to be guided by only one thing: what is in the security interests of the United States of America? Our Founders, both in the Constitution and in their actions governing the early Republic, spoke clearly on how to deal with such overseas adventures. While the threats may be current, they are neither new nor unique.

First, it is critical to understand that virtually all of the Founders had served in the military at one time or another and most of them had actually seen combat. These were not wild-eyed dreamers, nor pacifists. They knew blood; they knew struggle. Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Knox, Livingston, Greene, Randolph, and many more had seen war up close, and none of the Founders believed in disarmament. Their only disagreements came over whether militias could be whipped into shape quickly enough to defend the nation. Jefferson, one of the last to come around, finally admitted the need for a U.S. military academy to train officers.

Second, while the phrase “entangling alliances” is commonly thrown out by some conservatives as a warning against any alliances, the fact is that the U.S. had benefitted greatly from an “entangling” alliance with France. Washington’s warning, in his Farewell Address, warned against “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations.” Put simply, he believed people were capable of change. But then Washington made clear that Europe had different interests than our own—and that, indeed, the U.S. did have national interests. He argued for a standing army to protect those interests. It is all the more odd, then, that Washington (and John Adams) paid tribute, or bribes, to the Barbary Pirates to prevent them from seizing our shipping. But in the meantime Adams began construction of our first blue-water navy, which was completed in time for his successor, Thomas Jefferson to use it. When the Bey of Tripoli engaged in the time-tested declaration of war (back then, cutting down the U.S. flag), Jefferson did not hesitate a moment to send the entire U.S. fleet—without a declaration of war—to not only eliminate the Bey himself, but to take out any of his allies whether those states had declared war on the U.S. or not!

(more…)

Thomas Del Beccaro

Tea Parties, Third Parties and the Republican Party

by Thomas Del Beccaro

The struggles of the Democrats and the Republicans are making news.  The Democrats are learning that it is far easier to make campaign promises than it is to govern. As for Republicans, the party that loses the Presidential election often spends the off-year attempting to refine its message if not find a new message and new messengers. In the watchful eye of 24/7 cable news channels and the Internet, however, such political soul searching can appear rather untidy.  As the calendar turns, the process remains unresolved for Republicans to say the least.  Worse than mere overexposure, according to Rasmussen polling, despite Obama’s falling polls and Democrat divisions, the Republican Party would fare worse in an upcoming election than the Tea Party – a “Third Party” that, as of yet, does not exist.  It is no minor issue because with the help of Tea Party activists, Republicans certainly can beat Democrats next year – without them they may not.

Tea Party-11a_storyphoto

It would seem evident to many that the Tea Party movement should be the natural ally of the Republican Party.  After all, the issues that inspire most Tea Party activists should not be inimical to Republican Party leaders.  However, the fact that the Tea Party movement is at odds with certain aspects of the Republican establishment belies the greater issue as to why the Tea Party movement – and its potential to be a 3rd Party movement – arose at all.

It is worthy, as part of this discussion, to note that the rise and fall of third party movements and candidates is directly tied to whether voters perceive the existing parties as being successful.  In this context, successful means providing effective leadership on the major issues of the day.

(more…)