Guest Voice: American Freedom Agenda
Mar 23rd, 2007 | 22 responses
The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice columns from time to time. This is another contribution from Nick Rivera and it’s cross-posted at his blog. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV.
American Freedom Agenda
by Nick Rivera
Listening to the Mainstream Media or Talk Radio, you’d never know that a number of prominent conservatives have been critical of President Bush’s domestic and foreign policy and are distancing themselves from today’s Republican Party.
On March 20th, an alliance of conservative met in Washington D.C. to announce the formation of the American Freedom Agenda–a coalition whose states goal is “to defend civil liberties and roll back excessive presidential power.” Among the speakers were such notable conservatives as Former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, conservative founder of the direct mail movement Richard Viguerie, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, and former Republican Congressman Bob Barr.
Four stalwart conservatives with rather controversial pasts, and yet I found myself in agreement with virtually everything that they said–support for civil liberties, checks and balances, and restraining the ever-powerful Executive Branch. Despite their conservative credentials, liberal Democrat Russ Feingold would have fit seamlessly in with these four.
Do the Left and the Right have more in common than we given them credit for?
Is a political realignment a growing possibility?
I’ve provided a partial transcript of the 42-minute press conference (televised by C-SPAN), which can viewed in its entirety here (Real Player needed):
Bruce Fein:
None of us here are anti-President Bush. I voted for President Bush twice. I served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. But on matters of this importance, we’re all Americans. We’re all devoted to the Constitution above any partisan advantage.
Let me explain–the mission of the American Freedom Agenda is to roll back the accumulation of power in the presidency that has crippled checks and balances and invited injustices that we all ought to abhor as a civilized nation.
The most conservative principles of the Constitution have been repeatedly violated in the last several years. And they are a distrust in unchecked power–a distrust in the belief that human nature is benevolent. And building upon those conservative principles, the Founding Fathers engrafted a system of checks and review of one branch by another–a system of due process safeguards against injustice that is likely to occur because of prejudice and fear. And those checks and balances have eroded enormously over the last several years–particularly since 9/11. And let me enumerate for you the American Freedom Agenda elements that exemplify these erosions.
First we have military commissions. That is the equivalent of the Executive Branch playing judge, jury, and prosecutor using secret evidence or coerced testimony to convict individuals–a recipe for injustice.
We have habeas corpus suspended for detainees at Guantanamo Bay–habeas corpus tracing back to the Magna Carta–the fundamental freedom that enables any individual to challenge the legal or factual foundation for their detention before an impartial judge.
We have unlawful enemy combatants–those persons defined as providing any kind of material assistance to anyone affiliated to a terrorist or terrorist organization–being held indefinitely without any accusation of crime–being denied even the opportunity of to have an attorney to challenge the correctness of the designation before a combatant status review tribunal.
We have warrantless electric–electronic surveillance targeting American citizens on American soil by the National Security Agency in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as amended six times since 9/11 to accommodate the heightened danger and new communications technologies. Indeed, the theory that has been employed by the Executive Branch to justify that warrantless electronic surveillance would authorize the Executive Branch to open your mail, to break and enter into your homes, to search your computers without any warrants–on the President’s say-so alone…
Richard Viguerie:
I want to call to my fellow conservatives’ attention a Constitutional crisis that has developed to alarming proportions under President George W. Bush.
One of the most important principles of conservatism is that our Constitutional system of government is one of limited powers divided among three separate but co-equal branches. Just as a three-legged stool that has one leg longer than the other is unstable and could cause serious harm, our system of government will be unbalanced and potentially dangerous if all three branches of government are not co-equal.
The administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt saw unprecendented growth of the federal government. We were in a depression and then at war. So the other two branches of government caved in and allowed the Executive Branch to take more power than the Constitution authorized.
Since FDR, various presidents and their administrations have continued the expansion of excutive powers. However, President George W. Bush has massively expanded the power of the Executive Branch, partly in response to 9/11, and partly because of his philosophical belief in Big Government.
Congress has failed to do its job by acting as a check on the expansion of the Executive Branch. Conservatives must not fail to oppose the massive expansion of presidential powers out of fear they will be aid and comfort to the Left. Concern about one branch of government acquiring excessive power should not be the providence of liberals, moderates, or conservatives. It must be the concern of all Americans who value liberty…
David Keene:
In the days immediately following September 11, then Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld suggested in a public speech that if Americans change the way in which they live, the terrorists would have won. And the fact of the matter is that in this international crisis–as in international crises throughout our history–there’s been too great a willingness on the part of many to trade a little bit of freedom for what they see as a little more security.
It’s happened after war after war. Some of the legislation that we talked about here was passed as long ago as the Wilson administration, when Woodrow Wilson did throw newspaper editors in jail for disagreeing with him. In each of these instances, we ratchet down our freedoms, and at the end of the conflict, we don’t get them all back. And some of the restrictions continue.
I think that whether one agrees or disagrees with all of the items in this list–the very suggestion that we ought to recognize the importance as the engine of freedom of the system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers incorporated into the Constitution is a value that should not be denigrated.
There’s a lot blame for what’s happened here. The administration–some on its own and some because all administrations seek to maximize their power–the congress because it let it happen–the courts in many cases went along with it. Go back to the McCain-Feingold Act, which is completely separate from this. The Congress congressional leadership told members of congress they could vote for it because it was unconstitutional–they’d never need to worry about it becoming law. The president of the United States said, “It’s unconstitutional, but I’m going to sign it anyway, and I’m going to send it to the Court and them do the job.” The Court said, “Don’t throw it to us. This is a political matter. You deal with it.” All three branches of the government failed in that instance.
Today, we have a controversy going on at the Department of Justice. Part of that controversy involves a provision USA PATRIOT Act that would allow the appointment of U.S. attorneys without confirmation. The Justice Department says, “Gee, we don’t know who wrote that. We don’t know who–it must have been a summer intern.” On the Hill, everybody says, “We didn’t even know it was in the act.”
The fact of the matter is that all of the branches of government have been complicit in seeking to achieve their own missions–partisan or otherwise–legitimate or illegitimate–at the expense of a system that, for two hundred years, has guaranteed the American people the freest society on the face of the earth. And all these branches–all of the actors–and this goes to the public as well–have to realize what it is–and what it is about our system that’s made America special, and fight for those things that continue to make it special.
Bob Barr:
As we speak, there are hearings being conducted on the Hill in the House Judiciary Committee inquiring into abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act and the extraordinary powers that it allowed the federal government to seize. And these hearings that relate specifically to abuses with regard to the so-called National Security Letter powers are as blatant an illustration of what happens when unbridled power without checks and balances and without accountability is afforded an administration–any administration.
Recently, a number of us here attended the Conservative Political Action Conference organized and chaired every year by Dave Keene. And many of the topics that relate to the American Freedom Agenda that Bruce has outlined was discussed by various speakers and participants at CPAC.
I had the opportunity just this past weekend to attend the national committee meeting for the Libertarian Party. These very issues were discussed at great length by adherents to and members of the Libertarian Party. Recently, the court here in the District of Columbia–the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision that struck a small but important blow for freedom in upholding the primacy of the Second Amendment as opposed to oppressive anti-freedom legislation that had been standing for fully three decades here in the District of Columbia.
Each one of these illustrations–whether it is fighting through an organization of conservative activists such as CPAC–whether it is working through a political party which has liberty at its core–the Libertarian Party–whether it is supporting for and bringing cases to the courts to uphold the principles of the Bill of Rights–all of these things are important.
But we cannot sit by and wait thirty years for court decisions. We cannot wait until another four-year election cycle is concluded to have the Bill of Rights restored and defended. And we cannot even rely–as powerful as CPAC is–just on CPAC each year to bring attention to American conservative activists across the country to support the Bill of Rights. We have to do it every day in everything that we do. And the very best example of this is the initiative that is being launched here today under the leadership of Bruce Fein, to bring together Constitutional scholars–that is citizens who understand and care about and are willing to giv their time and resources to defend the Constitution–quite apart from any partisan or political activity…
Ron Paul (Guest Speaker):
Sometimes there’s careless thought about civil liberties, and all of the sudden, Republicans and conservatives don’t care, and that is in the realm of liberals. And I think this [American Freedom Agenda] is a testimony to the fact that there are a lot of conservatives that do care, and I think that’s very important.
You know, there’s a lot of talk when we get ready to appoint a Supreme Court justice or any justice about whether or not they’re strict Constitutionalists and that we’re always looking for them. But sometimes I think that debate is very careless because sometimes from the conservative viewpoint, strict Constitutionalists are concerned about Roe-vs-Wade and guns and maybe some economic issue. But when it comes to this [American Freedom Agenda], they don’t consider this to be a strict Constitutionalist.
These gentlemen here–leaders in the conservative movement–know the difference. And being a strict Constitutionalist doesn’t mean just when you’re pleased to do it. And that’s why I think this is so important what you’re doing because this makes a very powerful point.
I think if you’re a strict Constitutionalist, we should follow Article I Section VIII and deal with war under those conditions. You know, think about how many problems we might be able to avoid if we don’t go to war without a declaration of war. Look at the mess that we have now. And it’s under the conditions of war–and it was mentioned, I think, by Richard–that under these conditions, this is where our liberties are challenged. So it is trying to avoid these conditions when the American people become frightened.
So there is a saying that goes that, “Sometimes we ought to be more worried about what’s happening here than what’s happening overseas. And since, I think, our foreign policy has an effect on the threat of terrorism. And then you add onto it the threat from our own government.
And I don’t–as bad as this is–I don’t put all the blame on the president because I think the congress has tremendous responsibility–even on the war issue. We just renig on our responsibility and turn it over to the Executive Branch, and we do not protect the perogatives of the congress. And that is my message constantly. Besides, I’ve been a member of the congress, and I think I can–better be critical of the congress–that they give up too easily. And the temptation of the Executive Branch over the many many years of probably throughout all of history–they say that the Executive Branch is always hungry. That’s why it’s up to the people–up to the congress to reign in the power of the Executive Branch…
22 Responses to “Guest Voice: American Freedom Agenda”
Nic:
Thank you for sharing. I believe that a hallmark of greatness in a politician or other kind of leader is the ability to change their mind. That these three gentlemen, most notably Barr, have been able to do so is not only refreshing, it augers well for a revitalized conservative movement.
I wonder that is sometime in 2009 after either Senator”s Obama or Clinton are president if we will still be reading columns from left of center people talking about the benefits of divided government or the need for checks and balances. Somehow I doubt it.
SD- For some of us, this isn’t a partisan issue. The reason this comes up now is because even conservatives can see the harm that an expanded executive with no congressional oversight can do to the country. I personally would not want anyone in power who ignores our Constitution or thinks that Congress is irrelevant. The Bush administration has used the War on Terror to deafen any political dissent and has politicized every one of our agencies by advancing its ideologically extremist agenda.
I’m glad to see that these 4 can put the best interests of the country over partisanship. It gives me hope for the two-party system.
President Hillary and the Democratic houses won’t be able to run unchecked for six years, ManCoulter and SD will look for purple dresses.
superdestroyer,
Actually, leftist Ralph Nader was a persistent critic of Bill Clinton during his second term and even joined Republicans in calling for Clinton’s impeachment. Also, antiwar.com (which features libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and liberals) has been relentlessly critical of the Democratic Party on issues of war (going back to Bill Clinton) and considers them just as bad as the Republican Party.
So, believe it or not, there are people out there who take consistent positions on civil liberties and war and criticize both of the major parties, and the reason they’re able to be honest brokers is that they have no attachment to either party.
Unfortunately, the media doesn’t pay much attention to Independents, Greens, Libertarians, or paleoconservatives. They’re much happier to invite Democratic and Republican partisans onto their shows to make everything black-white, left-right, us-versus-them.
Thank goodness for C-SPAN, which invites people from ALL political persuaion onto its shows and actually televises what it is that our congress is doing in Washington.
I hope these folks collaborate with the Republican Leadership Council to create more visibility for moderate Republicans.
SD- If you remember, Jimmy Carter was President during a period when Democrats held both the House and the Senate. Much opposition to his agenda came from those in his own party, notably Ted Kennedy. The executive branch in the seventies was substantially weakened by reaction to excesses revealed by Watergate. Contrast this to the one-party state we had between 2001-2006, when the 109th largely served at the ‘pleasure of the president”.
NicR – Antiwar started out during Clinton’s time in response to Yugoslavia. Billy Kristol and anti-war have both been consistant in their war stance – anti-war lives up to their name; Billy Boy loved Clinton’s war in Europe, any war is good for him, the Republicans hated our troops in Bosnia. I have read AW for a couple years now, but some at TMV will accuse AW and the paleocons and Libertarians of being anti-semtic. Lind, Reese and PC Roberts come to mind…
But thing is, Paul, that these four (I’m excluding Ron Paul) are arch-conservatives. They’re extremely conservative on fiscal issues and also rather conservative on social issues. In they’re minds, THEY’RE the true conservatives and George W. Bush ISN’T.
This reflects a large (but little talked about) rift in the Republican Party that began in the 1980s between the paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives, which has led to the increasing marginalization of the paleoconservatives and the growth in power of the neoconservatives.
From a progressive Democrat’s perspective, these two group might both be considered conservatives. In fact, I have heard progressive Democrats denounce neoconservatives as “right-winger.” Yet, to from a paleoconservative’s perpspective, the upstart neoconservatives are actually to the LEFT of true conservatism. They don’t regard the neoconservatives to be true conservatives and don’t want to be associated with their policies.
Which all goes to show how utterly stupid our one-dimensional left-versus-right political spectrum is. There are progressives, liberal hawks, communitarians, moderates, libertarians, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, theoconservatives (the Religious Right)–none of which really agree with one another on more than a handful of issues.
And there are the Democrats and the Republicans, whose ideologies morph over time to such an extent that what a party stands for now is completely at odds with what it stood for only tens years ago.
What these four conservatives show is that one can be ideological without being partisan. In my mind, it is better to rigidly stand up for a particular political philosophy (though it might be outside the mainstream) then it is to unquestioningly defend a particular political party.
nicrivera wrote:
Ain’t that the truth! I’ve never understood why holding a certain position on one issue requires that you hold positions x, y and z on other issues. Why does being pro-choice mean that I have to hold certain positions on foreign policy? Why do my positions around various foreign policies have to revolve around the issue of being in favor or against American military force when each situation is unique and calls for a unique solution? I just don’t understand the willingness of so many people to become passionate hacks in favor of an arbitrary basket of seemingly unrelated policy positions… I guess it’s just easier to ride along.
Rudy,
And some at TMV would accuse you of being anti-semitic for even suggesting that we have no business going war to with Iran.
But to be honest, there are those at antiwar.com who go over the line from time to time. The time and energy that some of its columnists spend criticizing the Israeli government would be much better spent on criticizing the U.S. government.
It doesn’t change the fact that since its founding in 1998, antiwar.com has been even-handed in its criticism of Democrats and Republicans. If anything, it seems to hold Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans. Former Democratic presidential candidate and current DNC chairman Howard Dean is a “hawk” in the eyes of antiwar.com (for his openess to the idea of taking a harder line against Iran), and the only politician who is even remotedly trusted is Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
Nic I have been accused of being anti-Semitic by some commenters and front pagers at TMV. Are you familar with The Weekend Interview Show on the Republic Broadcasting Network for Libertarian web radio. While some segments are tin hat conspiracy nuts, much has been ahead of MSM in the MessinPotamia.
by friend joe leonardi has some intersting thoughs on the state of the republican party at his site
http://www.joeleonardi.wordpress.com
or
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/the-reason-the-right-went-wrong/
Rudy, the only Libertarian radio that I’m familiar with is the Genesis Communications Network, which admittedly and unfortunately, features conspiracy theorists in the mold of 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
But indeed, the “anti-semitic” slur represents a new low in political bickering. Long before liberal-turned-conservative-turned-liberal-turned-??? uberhawk Marshall Wittman (AKA, “the Moose”) was denouncing progressive critics of Senator Lieberman as being “anti-semitic”, neoconservatives were denouncing paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians as “anti-semitic” in order to run them out of the conservative movement.
Of course, what’s sad is that anti-semitism does unfortunately still exist here in the U.S., and falsely smearing the anti-war crowd with the term “anti-semitic” draws attention from those people who truly ARE anti-semitic.
The two I mentioned earlier are based in Texas. RBN and John Stadtmiller go back a ways, Google if your interested. Will check into GCN, it’s midwest origins may be interesting.
Bob Barr is apparantly more at home now in the libertarian movement than in the conservative movement. He’s also left the GOP for the LP. Wash Times reports that Viguerie just spoke at a Libertarian Party event.
If this is what our thought leaders are suggesting, perhaps we should start to consider/debate the same.
WonkedOut,
You know what’s funny? Even before I noted the link to the website you chose (rohrabacher.house.gov), I was thinking back to the all-out-debate between Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr and current Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher had on CNN back in December of 2005 concerning the National Security Agency’s spying program:
ROHRABACHER: No, that’s not–Bob, you haven’t read this. No, that’s not hypothetical at all. One of the cases that was involved in this, was someone who was attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and because of these wire taps, we were able to stop that.
BARR: No, you’re wrong there, Dana. First of all–
ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn’t deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is–
BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it.
Transcript of Barr-Rohrabacher debate here.
Video of Barr-Rohrabacher debate here.
Bob Barr’s defection to the Libertarian Party struck me by surprise considering that the LP was partially responsible for his defeat (Democrats in Georgia redrew the districts such that Bob Barr was pitted against fellow Republican Congressman John Linder, and the LP ran television ads that relentlessly hammered Bob Barr on his opposition to medical marijuana).
But clearly, Bob Barr has had enough of the Republican Party and has been one of the Bush Administration’s most persistent critics on the issue of the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA’s surveillance program.
Just curious, Wonked Out, are you in any way affiliated with Congressman Rohrabacker, and if so, could you offer Rohrabacher’s perspective on the current state of the GOP?
Nice job. It’s not extremism, either (“so far to the end of the spectrum they come back around…it’s a circle, not a line”). Many conservatives have not been fans of Bush (nor of Washington in the past several decades).
> I’ve never understood why holding
> a certain position on one issue
> requires that you hold positions
> x, y and z on other issues.
That’s called a “party platform.”
Now, if we had more parties (and proportional representation), there would be more platforms and more, differering combinations of positions on various issues.
Yes-No (“either side”) on five issues could support 32 political parties.
> This reflects a large (but little talked
> about) rift in the Republican Party
> that began in the 1980s between the
> paleoconservatives and the
> neoconservatives, which has led to
> the increasing marginalization of the
> paleoconservatives and the growth
> in power of the neoconservatives.
At least someone else has noticed this and says something about it.
The paleocons (placed by even conservatives to the far right, farther obviously than the neocons happy with an oversized Washington, DC) are marginalized to excluded, while all you typically hear are the false statements that the GOP is, or is dominated by, the “far right” [sic].
DLS,
“Far right” (like “far left”) has come to be an almost meaningless term nowadays since no one seems to be in agreement with what “the right” even mean anymore. Just who, I wonder are the “true” heir to conservatism? It is paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan? Neoconservatives such as William Kristol? Theoconservative such as Jerry Falwell? Mainstream conservatives such as George Will? ???-conservatives such as George W. Bush (sorry, but I’m still trying to figure out what his political ideology is).
It’s always bizarre to hear those on the left deride neoconservatives as being a part of the “far right.” It’s as if liberals/progressives don’t realize that paleoconservatives regard neoconservatives as being to the left of “true” conservatives.
Nic Rivera said:
> DLS,
You rang?
Stand by for a somewhat dissociated response.
> “Far right� (like “far left�) has
> come to be an almost meaningless
> term nowadays since no one seems
> to be in agreement with what
> “the right� even mean[s] anymore.
“Far Right” typically is used by liberals (including the media) to refer to anything right of the DLC-DNC.
So many liberals here and elsewhere call themselves “moderate” or “centrist” — the center continues to shift leftward, or at least it did so until 1980, though it continues to go leftward. Everyone now seems to look first to Washington, DC and the federal government to solve all their problems even though its legitimate constitutional role consists of almost nothing…that is what so many consider “mainstream” now, it’s heretical to question it. (So much for “Question Authority” — hypocrites, as usual…)
The terms still are meaningful to those of us who understand them.
> Just who, I wonder are the “true�
> heir to conservatism? It is
> paleoconservatives such as Patrick
> Buchanan?
Do you mean who will be most seen as “conservative,” by conservatives and the rest of us as well, the people who will pretty much define American conservatism? Paleocons have near zero respect or influence in Washington, even though yes, they and populists in their mold (who want jobs retained here at home, not outsourced elsewhere in the world, for example) are probably what most would say are true “conservatives” (and these days, typical of the “far right”).
> Neoconservatives such as William Kristol?
Ah, yes, a large, over-powerful Washington is just fine, thanks. They even have company in the form of some so-called libertarians, such as CATO, which relocated to the seat of that hated government in Washington and nowadays often engages in lobbying in DC in ways that often could be called “corporate whoring” on behalf of business.
The paleocons hate them.
Democrats and most other liberals can tolerate them, especially those who are actually quite liberal such as in the Northeast (the RINO version)
> Theoconservative such as Jerry Falwell?
Yuck. Nobody wants federal blue laws.
We don’t like religion in government and the religious right is an odd member. They’re just finding shelter on the Right due often to religious bigotry by the Left.
> Mainstream conservatives such as
> George Will?
Yuck. I have nothing but contempt for his contempt expressed toward the Perot campaign in 1992. (Anything other than the two major parties and candidates well known in Washington is not respectable to the likes of people like him.)
> ???-conservatives such as
> George W. Bush (sorry, but
> I’m still trying to figure out
> what his political ideology is).
Maybe he is too!
> It’s always bizarre to hear
> those on the left deride
> neoconservatives as being a
> part of the “far right.�
It is definitely bizarre — and irritating when it keeps happening after such people have been corrected numerous times.
But then, some of them on the left call the Democratic Party actually somewhat right of center(!!!). (Shows you where often the left thinks the “center” is — it’s the edge of ideological acceptability or toleration! Conservatives don’t see things that way, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…)
> It’s as if liberals/progressives don’t realize
There’s much they don’t realize or know. For many, not yet — they will when they get older and outgrow some of their youthful silliness. (The ones who stay liberal or become so in older years, these people interest me.)
> that paleoconservatives regard
> neoconservatives as being to the
> left of “true� conservatives.
That is true, though the neocons (once very well described as “liberals with economic common sense,” though the latter part may not be true if they believe debt with big spending is okay) are also considered conservative, which is why I use the term “far right” to characterize the paleocons. Not extremists; they are no such thing as a rule, but definitely farther right than the neocons (“Can’t we just all get along and maybe share the growth of government with the Democrats as long as we both do well for ourselves? We’ll spend some, they’ll spend some”). Note that the liberal media will call them “extremists” at any time, as well as anyone who criticizes the vast overgrowth of the federal government and its encroachment into state and local affairs. After 1994 such people were called “extremists” (a lie) by a reactionary liberal media, and in Congress there even was a pathetic New Deal dinosaurish group calling itself the “mainstream coalition.” That shows you how so many people (mainly liberals) characterize or classify “mainstream” as well as “moderate” and “centrist” politics (between the DLC-DNC and Democrats called liberal by their fellow liberals).
You seem to be well aware of a lot of these facts (and related facts such as FDR’s revolutionary role in our system of government), which I find refreshing.
As to what your original question may imply, what will conservatism be and mean in the years to come, it will continue to slide leftward to be more like the neocons, and paleocons will become even more endangered (along with so many of us who are more libertarian, classic English heritage types). Federalism is a relic; wait until more people are hooked on entitlements in their later years. DC will grow more than ever. A large new health care bureaucracy, mainly in DC, will be built there, and so on. “Conservatives” will even more be seen and heard (in the media) as Washington animals distinguished even less from the Democrats than they are now. We’ll have more regulation as well as more entitlements, while government spending and costs as a fraction of our gross product will continue to grow and advance into unknown-fraction territory. Ugly years ahead!
Now, a kicker — big cities are anomalous to the modern USA and the office of mayor is anachronistic. Giuliani is merely riding on historical and population momentum. But what if in the future we have metropolitan area unification? That would make some new modern local government posts big and serious. Bet it won’t be “true” conservatives that find their way into those posts. (Nor leading an even more powerful AFSCME)