In the February 16th, 2010 Wall Street Journal, Gerald F. Seib wrote an article called Senate Woes Flag Wider Disease. The premise of the article is that the center of the political continuum has been eroded and that the bridge historically connecting the left and the right is being dismantled. He goes on to indicate that the result is a Senate without an ability to accomplish anything. The Framers, along with many who have followed, have long-since understood the power of the majority in a democracy. Accordingly, they have inserted safeguards against the potential â€œtyranny of the majorityâ€ that are now coming into clear view. Mr. Seib also points to the rapidly expanding use, over the last twenty years, of filibusters and cloture votes used to end those filibusters. In the end, the article concludes, â€œThe broader political system, more than the filibuster, is the problem.â€
The notion of the â€œbroader political systemâ€ is an interesting focal point for the current situation. And while I am not certain what Mr. Seib intended by his use of the words, I am certain that the problem we have is much greater than a purely political problem. To cast blame on the system is to address a second-order cause, as opposed to any level of fundamental or first-order cause. The issues we face today are simply a proxy for the broader existential and self-identification issues we face as a nation. We face an array of ontological problems that have been emerging over several decades, but are now, for the first time, exhibited for everyone to see. The fundamental issue we face today is one of determining whether we as a nation are going to be governed by the use of power, or whether we will continue to be governed via â€œauthority.â€ The distinction is becoming essentially clearer with every passing day. And the distinction could not be more significant.
Our nation was built on [...]
There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But itâ€™s not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise â€” the principle at the core of American culture.
I dare suggest Brooks in this quote, has this exactly backward. Heâ€™s pointing at a symptom and labeling at the root cause. Not that I blame him, really. Itâ€™s been so long since weâ€™ve dealt with things on the level of principle that even the more learned among us get it garbled in translation.
I agree with Arthur that this is a war that is cultural in its nature. However, the war over capitalism, as he calls it, is part of the war on culture because capitalism in its truest sense can only exist in a free society, which is a culturally generated condition. It is the product of a particular variety of culture thatâ€¦ (at least until recently)â€¦ we here in these United States have been blessed with. What I am suggesting is that the principle at the core of the American culture is in fact freedom, of which capitalism is a product.
While it is true that there are a few places in the communist world, China for example, where capitalism raises its head in some form, it is diluted in the extreme. It is in fact, capitalism in name only. Alas in the view of many, a goodly number of which were out on the front lines of the tea party protests last month, that kind of weak as dishwater capitalism, capitalism in name only, is the [...]
Next to the Holy Bible, the US Constitution is probably the most important document you will ever come in contact with. Some may argue whether the Bible actually takes precedence, but that's a discussion for another time.
But few would debate that that, in a world where we put aside our differences with regard to faith, the document hammered out in 1787 to replace the failing Articles of Confederation is the most important bullwork to protecting our liberties.
And yet, without the accepted social contracts that the Constitution implies we operate under, and the willingness of those who "lead" our nation to maintain the integrity of the purpose and protections the Constitution affords us, we would likely drift into chaos. But as long as we can point longingly at that document and proclaim it's efficacy to protect our rights, we are safe.
On Saturday, I spent my usual morning perusing my favorite daily periodical, the Wall Street Journal. As I began reading an interesting piece by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey on the D.C. Voting Rights Act (an excellent treatise on the issue), my dear wife (who likes to [...]
According to recent Gallup polls, the presidentâ€™s average approval rating is below 30% â€” down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, â€œToday, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.â€
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
Rejected from the Democrats because thatâ€™s what the Democrats do. Reach out to them, theyâ€™ll break your armâ€¦ as Bush Sr found out. Remember[...]
If you’ve not read Daniel Henninger’s column in the October 2, 2008 edition of The Wall Street Journal, I encourage you to. In this column, Mr. Henninger defines the term “moral hazard”, particularly as it relates to Wall Street, Fannie Mae...