« U.S. Military Bases are Alright, Under One Condition …: Semana, Colombia
“Tonight, We Are All ‘Too Irrational To Be Dealt With Sanely’” »
Ranking The Presidents
Guest Post By C.L. Smith aka “Leonidas”
C.L. Smith is a frequent, right of center commenter on The Moderate Voice and has been invited as a Guest Voice.
**********
Every so often I look back at an eassy/article from the past that is one of my favorites. It doesn’t really pertain to current events directly, but it always seems to indirectly. John Silveria wrote a piece for Backwoods Home and it is one of my favorite reads ever on the Internet. Not everyone I know is a fan of federalism, but even if not, this article might provoke some thoughts. It challenges us to look beyond the dogma and to the heart of things recognizing Facism without the Nazi connotation and communism without evoking Stalin. More importantly, it makes us think about evaluating a President and the government by a defined standard, one that each government official swears to uphold.
Here is a snippet:
Can you imagine if a President today started vetoing all the bills coming out of Congress because they were unconstitutional? Senators and representatives would want to know what the Constitution’s got to do with it. Special interests, both liberal and conservative, would be calling for impeachment, and the press and academia would vilify the President.
However, modern Democrats do pay lip service to admiring Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and they often used to call themselves the party of Jefferson and Jackson—but not so much anymore.”
“Why not?” I asked.
Both were proponents of small government. If either could come back today, they would be horrified at what’s become of the Democratic Party. And they also would have no kindred feelings toward modern Republicans because the Republicans are going down the same road, albeit with about a 25 year delay.
Here is another:
Bill just shook his head, but Dave said, “When the Clintons first took office…”
“Only one of them did,” Mac said and Dave laughed.
“Okay, when Bill did, they wanted to institute a national health plan and explained it would be managed competition. Is that fascism?”
“That’s right.”
“Fascism is about zero tolerance and persecution,” Bill said.
“Fascism is just an economic theory, Bill. It’s not about concentration camps any more than communism is about gulags and Siberia. Hitler didn’t need fascism any more than Stalin or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia needed communism to carry out their atrocities.”
The rest can be found here:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html
18 Responses to “Ranking The Presidents”
Good points, Leo — not only the lament for federalism (so quaint, so passe', so disparaged) but the need to recognize fascistic examples as the preferred Big Government construction that it is in this country.
(Don't overlook the proposed health care “exchanges” and the details of a future regulatory environment.)
1. Don't be surprised if people write in to disparage your subject, as they would disparage this blog and book:
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
2.
“Not everyone I know is a fan of federalism”
Constitutional federalism has few fans or defenders. (For us few, we must settle for damage control.)
At least previous giants in the liberal world, like Tugwell (whom I've discussed before), were honest about this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917…
http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/Tugwell…
Good fish story. I wonder why your constitutionalist put Jefferson in the top tier when Jefferson broke the Constitutions restraint on Federal actions not described in the Constitution. The article is written with a taste for the wise old mentor point of view, but under Jefferson's portrait, we find “. But rather than increasing the power of the federal government, his intention was to get a European power off the North American continent and to expand the nation itself. “
It seems even the strict constructionists have a weakness for “good intentions.” The crack that Jefferson slips through is the same one all those third tier radicals slip through.
If the activist lefties are to be relegated to the bottom, shall we also drop all the Federalists who assisted with Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts?
Hamilton, not a president, but definitely Federalist, should be dropped from the $10?
Leonidas, I enjoyed the piece. But the problem I have is that true Constitutional adherence got no further than our second and third Presidents. Doesn't that fact make the question of constitutional adherence rather moot? 90% of our country's existence has been lived outside Federal adherence, what practical approach is there for going back. Do we void the purchase and give everything West of the Mississippi back to the French?
Fascism is not “an economic theory”. It is an authoritarian and nationalist political and economic ideology pitting the “strong” against the “weak”. Fascism establishes a supreme corporatist state which denies the interests or rights of the individual. As defined by Wiki:
“Fascism, pronounced /?fæ??z?m/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.”
Or use Mussolini's own definition. He invented it…
” For the Fascist, everything is within the State and… neither individuals or groups are outside the State…. For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative.”
I don't know about Jackson. Jackson was an illiterate reactionary monster.
I think the difference with Jefferson was not interested in a power grab and was dealing with a matter of national defense. So maybe a soft spot, but he did mention the point in the article and not ignore it, so there was some concern.
Agree and disagree. It is as you say an ” an authoritarian and nationalist political and economic ideology”, but it is also a theory as well. In addition it does not automatically pit the “strong” against the “weak”, that is just how the ideology worked itself out in the past when put in practice. There is certainly a great danger of a repition of this in a fascist system but it is not a given. Like the article pointed out, Mussolini was admired to a degree by FDR and Churchill for his policies, those men were not proponents of pitting the “Strong” vs the “weak”. Had they been in charge of a fascist state it is quite likely that during their time in power you would not have had that aspect.
I actually visited this website a couple of years ago and read the exact same article that Leonidas linked to. The tone and subject matter of the article comes across as paleoconservative/paleolibertarian, a viewpoint that you don't hear much about these days.
One of the things that clearly comes across in this article is our current bias in favor of activist presidents. “Do nothing” presidents who were more faithful to the prinicples of the Constitution (though they hardly saints in this regard) are regularly trashed nowadays.
One of the things that I find odd (and have commented about here at TMV on several occasions) is how so many Democrats savaged George W. Bush for his disrespect for the Constitution and expanding the power of the Executive Branch but have little to no critical things to say about Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored the Constitution on numerous occasions and did far more to expand the power of the Executive Branch.
For those of you who truly care about federalism and constitutional constraints on the federal government, my earnest suggestion to you is that you put your money where you mouth is and vote Libertarian, because God knows the Democrats and Republicans could really care less about such things.
And while Jonah Goldberg can write a book about Liberal Fascism (a book which I have not read and therefore cannot criticize), a close examination of his political positions suggests that he cares little more about the Constitution and limited government than the liberals he criticizes.
I might remark that activist presidents are more likely to face some of the monumental challenges that the US and the world are facing today– such as inequality caused by globalization, terrorist cells in many parts of the world, an increase in environmental degradation due to industrialization,massive imports of unsafe products, deterioration of our standard of living, rising health costs, rising energy costs, nuclear prolilferation in unstable countries, etc etc.
What do you think Jefferson would do about all of these enormous challenges?
Leonidas
“The only practical approach is to allow no further encroachments, require that the Constitution be amended rather than violated by a tyranny of the majority, and to push back the tide by supporting efforts of States to assert their rights and elect State and Federal leaders who will strongly push for them, regardless of Party.”
Here is my fundamental problem with the Constitutionalist approach to viewing the way our government “should” work. Depending who's cow gets gored, even the most avowed constitutionalist makes exceptions for what the signers intended the Constitution to mandate. Jefferson gets off with a “pardon” for the purchase because his “intentions” were not to grab power; but Roosevelt was a usurper of power by the same critic. Everybody views what people have done through their own biased lens.
If one wants to be a true Constitutionalist, I would argue that the right to rule any law unconstitutional is itself not expressly given within the Constitution. That being the case and coupled with the fact that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” means exactly that. It means that since 1803, the Supreme court has been nothing but a pack of activist judges who have ignored the law they are supposed to protect.
Intentions are not proscribed law, and constitutionalists ignore that basic fact when they construe the founding father's intentions. It a two edge sword where everybody only sees the edge cutting through other people's arguments.
I don't see the Constitution as a holy relic from our country's inception the way many do. It was merely the best, most specific compact that the founding fathers could get accepted by everybody. It's a starting point for the “great experiment” that is the US. The problem is that the Constitution has gaps; gaps based upon colonial politics and gaps based upon societal change, and yes, gaps of omission. One can argue the the founders knew what they meant, but knowing what they meant is not obvious. Adams and Jefferson demonstrate just how incomplete the document was. Going forward, changes in the world illuminated other signs of that incompleteness. The crisis of the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World Wars has required changes to accommodate the new realities the we live in now.
If you wish “to allow no further encroachments,” why stop there. US law is based upon precedent, if you wish recover the original intent, don't start your restoration upon the rotten exceptions made since Adams. Otherwise, amend what we have now to steer the ship of state back from the rocks. Don't pine for past perfection lost, it was lost at President number two.
“it wasn't until Lincoln that we saw the massive violations occur repeatedly”
To what extent it was due to Lincoln himself, and to what extent it was due to being at war (“war is the health of the state”), it's true that it was at that time that we first saw the true large rise of the “Yankee Levithan.”
* * *
“We should try to adhere to our own Constitution and if necessary amend it.”
Oh, but that's so quaint, so outmoded, and it is too difficult and takes too long. “Just Do It.”
* * *
“Or use Mussolini's own definition.”
We can use one of our own, Tugwell's to describe the same thing (all that's missing is the employment of “corpus”), for our future: “[A]n organic whole, controlled by advanced arts of administration.”
It's more descriptive than alternatives like “government-business partnerships” (or “managed cartels”), though the latter terms are fully appropriate and capture the essence of what Mussolini (whom the New Dealers admired and copied in some ways; fascistic means have been the preferred means of liberals in this country, over nationalization and openly “public” or Communistic-style alternatives) had described.
* * *
“Liberal Fascism (a book which I have not read and therefore cannot criticize)”
It's highly recommended. That it is falsely and bitterly attacked by the Left is evidence it is good.
It's not the be-all and end-all of books on the subject (no book is), but it's definitely worthwhile.
“Mussolini was admired to a degree by FDR and Churchill for his policies, those men were not proponents of pitting the 'Strong' vs the 'weak'”
The original poster on this thread was confusing false leftist emotive claims (and underlying radical egalitarianism as well as Right-hatred) in the same way fascism has been said before to be defined by, among other things, “militarism; machismo; macho.” That is, just standard radical-left wrath objects.
And that is what the amendment process exists for.
An activist president is more likely to cause many problems as well. Although I don't see increased globalization as a problem at all. Look at terrorism, why are we targeted?
Leonidas–
Globalization will flatten out the standard of living for American workers
and increase unemployment. Our workers have been increasingly unable to
compete with those who work in near-slave like conditions in China and
elsewhere – where workers work long hours, 6 day weeks and have no benefits.
Our industries will be forced to compete with those who work without any
environmental restrictions or safety laws.
We are already seeing the death of American industry in auto manufacturing,
textiles and electronics, and now have a consumer-driven economy.
As far as being targets for terrorism, I guess that's because of our
anti-communism foreign policies in the years leading up to the systems
collapse, because of our dependence upon foreign oil, plus our close ties to
Israel. But globalization has also exacerbated that problem— because our
culture clash is occuring readily on the internet.
“And that is what the amendment process exists for.”
Those who are childish and impatient, or bypass what they know they cannot secure in a legitimate way, prefer easier, faster (illegitimate) alternatives.
Note that disenchantment with “powdered wig” stuff is bogus; they're being selective, as well as just trying to be creative in making up fake excuses for what they want done. They never say they want the First Amendment to stop being honored, for example. (Indeed, they abuse it to defend many instances of misconduct which isn't defensible under the First Amendment.) And how many times do they rush to misconstrue existing parts of the Constitution like the “general welfare” clause, or refer to the Last (and sometimes the First) Resort of Losers, the Preamble?
(The most wild stunt I've seen has been by a constitutional law professor who refers to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence in claiming a legal basis for, and a legal basis for a lawsuit to force, a guaranteed minimum income to be provided by the Washington.)
DLS
“Note that disenchantment with “powdered wig” stuff is bogus; they're being selective, as well as just trying to be creative in making up fake excuses for what they want done. They never say they want the First Amendment to stop being honored, for example.
As I said before, that sword cuts both ways. You ready to give up everything west of the Mississippi? Didn't think so. Could that be because you see Jefferson as just being creative? That's the problem, subjective interpretation is a human frailty. Adams, Burr, Hamilton, Jefferson, those esteemed “founding fathers” whose holy tenets we are told to follow, all these guys had no problem getting creative when they saw a need.
By the way, let me know where in the Constitution “intended” the Supreme Court to “create” the right to deem a law unconstitutional. It surely isn't enumerated in plain language, so interpretation to that right is just as illegal as any terrible liberal act you so love to attack.
Interpretation began almost immediately after inception, so the vaunted Constitutional tradition you so love to believe is held within the text is merely a fiction that never really was. The fallacy held by the strict Constitutionalists is that we have somehow fallen away from the way it used to be. The fallacy is that the way it used to be never was.