Having been stung, I suppose by the response to the question of why the left reserves special disdain and approbation for those conservative and NOT MALE as a special group - STUPID BITCHES - the NEW REPUBLIC, once the province of the editor and former VP - “Wallace believed that both the American and the Russian revolution were part of “the march to freedom of the past 150 years.” attempts to attack the theoretical underpinning of, naturally - Michelle Bachmann.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM.
as someone with a well-earned reputation for extremism—her strong “constitutional conservative” stance indicates, but only to those who are trained to listen, a decidedly radical agenda that is at least as congenial to rabid social conservatives as it is to property-rights absolutists or anti-tax zealots. In short, it enables her to run as a middle-of-the-road conservative who just wants to get rid of ObamaCare and balance the budget, even as she lets the initiated know she has other, more ambitious, plans for the country.
hmmmm.
Among this crowd, it more commonly connotes an allegiance to a set of fixed—eternally fixed, for the more religiously inclined—ideas of how government should operate in every field. Constitutional conservatives want to distinguish themselves from the more tradition-bound type of conservatives who adapt to changing social and economic needs and, for that matter, to the perceived wants and needs of the populace. They rarely come right out and denounce democracy, of course, but it’s clear they think their liberties are endangered by people who, say, would like government-guaranteed access to affordable health care.
If seizing the property of one person to force them to care for another’s health is not a self evident endangerment of individual liberty (if nothing else, as a PRINCIPLE) then we have no common ground with the common progressive, and none with what NOW PASSES as the center o the democratic party.
Note also that the writer, one, Ed Kilgore attempts to FORCE the painting he is throwing paint at to portray self identified constitutional conservatives as fixed FOREVER to whatever the document says. Because of religion?
Actually I’d like to meet any Constitutional Conservative that thinks the 3/5 rule is an eternal truth, or that the eradication of it with Amend XIV made possible by the death and wounding of one million is not the correction to that.
But never mind.
Here is where the meat of the separation comes into play ..
But that’s where the dog whistle aspect of calling yourself a constitutional conservative comes into play. The obvious utility of the label is that it hints at a far more radical agenda than meets the untrained eye, all the while elevating the proud bearer above the factional disputes of the conservative movement’s economic and cultural factions.
Ironic in that the Founders, from 1773 right on thru 1789 certainly DID have a radical agenda.
On the economic side of the coin, most mainstream politicians are not going to publicly say that the monstrosities they associate with ObamaCare, “redistribution of wealth,” or Keynesian stimulus techniques are rooted in their desire to reverse the New Deal, as well as a long chain of Supreme Court decisions that also happened to make possible the abolition of segregation.
Back to square one… if you are a Constitutional Conservative it’s CODE!!!
Actually almost every SINGLE politician I have listened to who opposes Obamacare on principle, AND economically has said it IS redistribution of wealth (thus they are immediately not mainstream, ED, - hint you don’t own the word.) But we goo all the way here - it’s really code for reversing the “long chain of Supreme Court decisions that also happened to make possible the abolition of segregation”
If you self identify as a Constitutional Conservative, congrats, you are out of the mainstream, and by so self identifying you are a racist.
So here goes…. Plessy vs Ferguson was a monstrosity as was the 3/5. The constitution was the MEANS of it’s correction. Brown vs Bd of Educ of Topeka was correct, and lead many into the false reality confusing the exception to the legislative process by SCOTUS into thinking it was a remedy for failing to convince the people to vote the right people into congress. George Marshall, close to the document, warned that restraint on excess“must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes”. The court is a last resort, and cannot be the tool of choice whenever legislative failure occurs. Roger Taney anyone?
I know of NO self identified so called constitutional conservative who feels differently (about Brown and the SCOTUS process), not even Sen Paul (who doesn’t count because he doesn’t have ovaries anyway). NOT ONE. ANYWHERE.
But I am an out of the mainstream, religious racist making this silly claim.
Of course, I am a jewish, former 1960’s civil rights worker, George Mcgovern volunteer, ruined forever by 76-80.
That makes your theory kind of a tough sell, Ed.
And it means all out political warfare against the radical religious racists, but of course, one of the old white slave holders DID warn about factionalism (Madison), didn’t he?
People like you Ed, are forcing the the choice one day between Noam Chomsky and Franklin Graham, there will be no middle, and no room for debate with the evil of either side.
- The world according to Clarence Thomas and Ayn Rand (dailykos.com)
- Bachmann goes into overdrive (macleans.ca)
- The Ever-Expanding Commerce Clause vs. “Libertarian Anti-Government Activism” (reason.com)
- Obama Assures America’s Slavery To Rothschild’s Banking System: By Printing $110 Billion New USD Per Month And Injects It Into The Commodities Market. (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Conservatives show themselves as cowards and children. (kylere.wordpress.com)
- AARP and CBO Realize Debt is Bad + More (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Obama reaps victory as judges uphold health law (insurancenewsandreview.wordpress.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment