Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Afraid Government Will Ruin Your Life? Reduce Their Power.
This weekend has seen protests from coast-to-coast, lawyers flooding airports, and media and politicians engaged in a to-the-death hyperventilation contest. Why? Because President Trump issued an Executive Order they don’t like.
Sure, criticize the wisdom of the order, the ham-handed rollout, or its weak legal vetting, but Trump is using a tool employed to sweeping effect during Barack Obama’s tenure. Conservatives consistently pointed out the extra-constitutional actions of President Pen And A Phone, but their warnings were laughed off as partisanship if not racism. Did these self-styled elites actually think a future President wouldn’t use EOs in ways they didn’t like? Of course not.
So where do these constitutional converts go from here? I proposed a truly radical idea in this weekend’s column for the not-quite-center-right Arizona Republic:
I recommend everyone step back, take a few breaths from a paper bag, and ask why control of the government is so damn important to partisans of both sides.
A few years ago, protesters feared that President Obama would sideline school choice, kill off their existing health insurance and make them violate their traditional beliefs. Today’s protesters fear President Trump will defund public schools, take away their health insurance and persecute LGBT citizens.
Despite being on opposite sides, protesters on the right and left can end their fears the same way. If you’re afraid that the federal government will ruin your life, reduce the power of the federal government.
Our Founders wrote the Constitution to ensure than government would be filled with checks and balances. Not only in the power relationship between Congress and the President, but also between Washington DC and the states. America wasn’t designed to orbit around the whims of an imperial capital. Instead, all decisions without national import were to be decided in statehouses, county seats, and local townhalls.
Though today’s leaders consider themselves far smarter than James Madison, et al., they don’t possess a fraction of their wisdom. Instead of ignoring the Constitution while your guy’s in the Oval Office and suing over it while the other guy’s in, respect it as the law of the land for both.
Then, your day-to-day life won’t be much effected by which party is signing orders in the White House.
Published in Politics
Gosh, I hope the world, and Ricochet, are big enough for both forms of argumentation.
Personally, I enjoy debating ideas. Tea and crumpets, although two of my favorite national dishes, are optional, and I’m broad-minded enough to consider others as accompaniments to the conversation.
Sometimes, blunt-force trauma, whoever it’s administered by, is the only recourse, I agree. But it’s never the only choice (Edit–going into the conversation, I mean, for clarity). Or at least, it should not be.
What you’re calling for is the abandonment of democracy and a return to bigger army diplomacy that dominated western civilization for the majority of its existence. No thanks.
If blunt force trauma is the way you settle political disputes then we can all just agree that the west has failed.
Completely agree, when we’re in decent places, dealing with decent people.
To quote Gollum, though, sometimes “we’re not in decent places,” and we’re not dealing with decent people. Then, I think there need to be other options on the table. That’s what I mean.
You’re talking about using violence against fellow citizens to settle a difference of political opinion. That’s where I get off the train. I’m not a progressive for that very reason.
I most certainly am not.
There is no part of the United States that I would not consider a “decent place,” and I would consider all of its citizens “decent people” of one sort or another. I hope you agree with me, at least on that.
It should be pretty clear, I think, that I’m talking about situations in the sorts of places where wars are fought over piles of rubble, against and with people who are trying to kill us. It should also be pretty clear that my comment is heavily weighted to the presumption that reasoned debate and agreement is the much-preferred solution, in as many cases as is possible.
If that wasn’t clear before, I hope it is now.
Thank you for the clarification. I don’t think this is what TKC meant, but he is invited to clarify.
Interesting, high-minded string of comments, but if we forget that the left is out to destroy the central idea that is the USA, we’re doomed. Maybe we can achieve some form of normal non-acidic discourse after the socialists have been run off the stage. Now is not the time to get weak-kneed and placating with the diminishing portion of the left that still exercises political power. If you think you can convince Schumer or any of his fellow travelers that our constitutional policies are superior, I’ve got the proverbial bridge to sell you. Same goes for addle-pated McCain and Co.
There are some on the left that we will never persuade. I’m thinking of the folks breaking windows and screaming when things don’t go their way. But that is a small percentage and I wouldn’t waste my time with them.
However, there are a lot of folks who vote democratic that are open to reason. There are a hell of a lot more of them than there are than those who can’t be reasoned with. It’s just not easy. I will say that it makes it a lot tougher when we consider these folks the “enemy” and are trying to bash their brains in. That type of attitude is not going to persuade anybody.
I am? Interesting.
You are correct, and that is exactly why we distinguish between normal citizens who incorrectly and maybe even haphazardly vote Democrat and those who exercise power to destroy our constitutional society. For the latter, no holds barred. For the former, education might help.
Indeed, interesting. Being unwilling to exercise power gained through strict constitutional means is unworthy. This isn’t a parlor game.
Please define, “no holds barred.” That is the question in my mind, and possibly others’.
We are already there, regardless of our desires.
Sure, I’m advocating truncheons…no…
I’m talking about the exercise of constitutionally conferred power and its use by our representatives. Failure to fully exercise that power is immoral and doesn’t represent the wishes of those who elected them.
Use the full power of the Senate to ram through the nominations. Each nomination isn’t a mini election or popularity contest. If the Senate won’t perform their simple advise and consent duty, then Trump can and will likely simply move forward and order each department to do his bidding. He has the bandwidth to do that, in spite of Schumer’s disdain.
Screw the invented 60 vote majority and the mindless “my esteemed colleague” typical order of business and get it done, McConnell.
That’s “no holds barred” in a nutshell. We either effectively and decisively use our hard-won power to save the USA, or we roll over like the GOP has done for decades. Choose.
Note:
Implicit personal attack.No, we’re not, regardless of your [redacted].
Our Republican allies who wish to educate their opponents about our Constitution would do well to get their heads out of their scholarly journals, put their coffee cups down and study rudimentary game theory. It’s all fine and good to lead by example and claim the moral high ground when you are trying to persuade objective bystanders. But first you must have a way to communicate with them. Basically, you don’t. The media does not carry your Constitutional Channel. The outlets these people watch and listen to lie about you, your candidates and your ideas.
The opposing political operatives, who are generally educated in these matters, will not be convinced by reason, or they would have been by now. They are agenda-driven. They will use any ‘good behavior’ when their opposition is in power to their advantage. When they obtain power, they will simply move forward with their agenda.
You can point this out. You can yell, scream, use all caps, but they aren’t listening. A large portion of these voters can’t hear, and their leaders won’t hear.
This cycle repeats.
The result is perpetual failure to make any advances, and perpetual encroachment on our Constitutional freedoms by you seek to uphold.
The result of this approach is harmful to the freedoms that our Constitution was enacted to protect.
We can pat ourselves on the back for being better than our opponents, but let’s make sure we keep the big picture in mind.
I think I follow the internal logic of your comment.
However, I’m not sure who you are talking about when you say “Our Republican allies,” “their opponents,” “these people,” “your candidates,” “opposing political operatives,” “their opposition,” and “you.”
More specifics would probably lead to more clarity in your point.
OK. I’m with you as far as a more robust exercising of constitutionally conferred power than we have seen recently.
You lose me at “Then Trump can and will likely simply move forward and order each department to do his bidding.”
It sounds to me as if you are inviting him to become what his opponents most fear. Are you? Is that the implied threat of his Presidency?
Good points. Sorry. I wrote that in several steps and didn’t proofread. I’m having a difficult time lately with labels. I’m not a Republican, but I am allied with them (most). Opposing political operatives are leftist Democrats…. “these people” ordinary Dem voters. “you” seek to uphold = naive Republicans.
What are “the freedoms that our Constitution was enacted to protect”?
I’m about to remind you of an obvious fact, so don’t be alarmed, She. The departments lacking executives due to Senatorial malfeasance already work for Trump, and will thus do his bidding with or without an executive in place. Trump could merely order agency actions directly, but I’m sure he’d rather not interfere with his incoming executives’ preferences. But if he has to to fulfill his obligations, I’ll bet he will.
Why is that a cause for fear? Trump is going to morph into FDR?
Agencies exist to administer the law not to do the President’s bidding.
Agencies have executives, in a hierarchical level; in the case of the Presidency, all the cabinets report to him. If an entity in the chain of command is vacant, the agency doesn’t go on hiatus. Executives give legal orders within their purview, even Trump, however disliked. If Congress dictates all actions why even have a President? More than one way to skin a cat, Jamie.
I appreciate your concern, TW but it’s misplaced. Facts may be stubborn things, but they don’t frighten me. Quite the reverse. I suspect you know exactly what I meant in response to your original comment.
Congress doesn’t dictate anything. They pass laws. The agencies administer things according to the laws passed by congress. The President can’t do what he wants just because he’s in the executive – this was the problem most of us had with Obama.
Sorry to report that you are wrong. There is a lot of choice and discretion involved even when faithfully administering laws. Please don’t obfuscate, but rather give me an example of executive over reaching by Trump that alarms you.
Baning Permanent Residents from reentering the United States for 90days – thankfully walked back.
By the way – this was exactly what we criticized Obama for doing. The difference is that you like the way Trump is interpreting the laws. Well this is why I emphasize structure and process so much – they matter far more in the long run.
I hate this thread. It started with Jon telling me I ignore the Constitution when it is convenient for me, and it has ended with… whatever this mess is.
How do I get Ricochet to stop telling me there are new posts to it?