Madison: seeing into the future?

The New Neo Posted on by

A comment by NeoConScum in which he quoted Madison’s Federalist Paper #55 was so compelling that I went to the source for more. There I found the following gems [emphases mine]:

I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery. I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting, the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents. I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them. What change of circumstances, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions. But judging from the circumstances now before us, and from the probable state of them within a moderate period of time, I must pronounce that the liberties of America cannot be unsafe in the number of hands proposed by the federal Constitution.

The genius of Madison included the fact that he knew the risks to liberty were likely to increase with time and the growth of the country. He didn’t foresee every detail (who could?), but he was awfully cautious to only project his statements into the near future.

And this is the quote from the same Federalist Paper, offered earlier by NeoConScum:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Are we at the tipping point, where “sufficient virtue” does not exist?

DeMint leaves Senate to head Heritage Foundation

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t like this news. Unless there’s something hidden, I guess I understand it—the war of ideas and all that, versus frustratingly spinning his wheels in the Democrat-run Senate. But I’d been thinking that DeMint was a strong voice among Republicans in that body, and might even run in 2016. And now he’s quit? Don’t get it.

Boy, do I get the extreme importance of the war of ideas. And I realize that a Republican governor will get to appoint his replacement.

But still. My gut says this is a bad move and a bad sign. My gut’s been very talkative lately.

From democracy to despotism

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a quote to ponder:

As Montesquieu understood, polities established on extended territories tend to end up as despotisms. They do so for a set of simple reasons. In such a polity, the government is at a great distance from the vast majority of the people it governs. It is out of sight, and, as a consequence, it is largely out of mind. As such, it offers to those in charge a temptation that human beings cannot withstand. They have in their hands Gyges’ ring, and in time it will be used. To this one can add that large polities are subject to frequent emergencies and that this tends to concentrate power in the hands of the central administration.

Montesquieu suggests one antidote and hints at another. He expressly recommends federalism. Federal states can for the most part be governed in the manner of small polities. They leave ample space for citizen participation in decisions of local import. They are also able, because of their size, to defend themselves against large polities. Montesquieu’s prime contemporary example was the Netherlands.

The antidote that he hints at is the separation of powers. Where there are representative institutions, elected representatives can look after the interests of the people. If the legislature is divided between two bodies, they can be set as sentinels over one another. If there is a separate executive power, the man occupying that position can be expected to enforce the laws without prejudice, and this means that the legislators will be subject to the laws they pass (which is a sobering thought apt to encourage prudence on their part). They in turn exercise legislative oversight with regard to the conduct of his ministers in office. Finally, the judicial power (and he has juries first and foremost in mind) protects individual citizens against a tyrannical enforcement of the law on the part of the executive.

All in all the separation of powers — especially that between the legislature and the executive — encourages a healthy conflict within the central government by means of which the two powers guard against one another.

The way our government is structured is not arbitrary. But to so many—especially the younger generations, who are barely taught about what people like Montesquieu said, or assigned to read the Federalist Papers, even in the finest schools—they probably seem that way. If a person hasn’t received any grounding in these matters it makes sense to ask: why limit the federal government? Why have a republic at all? End gridlock! Down with the filibuster! Let’s make it easier to pass bills and issue executive orders so that the central government can solve problems and help us.

Romney Derangement Syndrome lives on

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that the election is over, and Mitt Romney has retired to private life, I’ve noticed that many of the newest articles about him in the MSM and posts about him in the blogosphere seem to engender a host of incredibly vicious personal comments from the sore winners on the left.

It would seem odd, wouldn’t it? Romney lost, and almost certainly will not enter national politics again. He waged a rather polite campaign under daunting circumstances. He’s clearly a good man on the personal level, whatever anyone may think of his politics.

And yet the hatefest goes on. Much of it is just an example of the free-floating rage on the left, a relic of the extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome in which they macerated for eight long years. But there wasn’t a similar post-election rage at John McCain. Why?

I think it’s because Obama sets the tone and the rest follow. Obama’s campaign against McCain was neither especially vicious nor especially personal. But Obama’s fight against Romney was almost entirely that, and relentless too. The focus was class warfare (one of Obama’s favorites) and attacks on Romney as a person, and the minions picked up on the “rich white guy out to exploit the people” meme and ran with it. They are still running, hard and fast.

Here’s a comment I found at PJ that describes the phenomenon exactly:

In what kind of twisted mind is it necessary to continue to vilify the guy to the point of denying his own humanity? The election is over, he is not coming back. There is no need to continue to play the smear games. The most frightening thing to me is that many people seem to have internalized the hate. They cannot turn it off. It is not a thoughtful reaction, but instead a reflex. It demonstrates the power of the media in relentlessly teaching the Obama followers their talking points. Now that the talking points have been internalized, [they] are apparently not easy to exorcise.

I would add that it’s not just the power of the media, it’s the power of Obama himself. He acts as a smooth, subtle releaser for hatred of the right and all Republicans (not just Mitt Romney), by blaming the other party as bad actors to a degree I really haven’t seen in previous presidents.

I saw the results myself, to my shock, among quite a few of my friends right before the election. I didn’t expect them to support Romney or even like him. But there was gratuitous, vicious hatred, a kind of group festival of contempt for him. Remember, it was said that Obama had “contempt” for Romney? Stuff like this filters down even to people who are relatively politically uninvolved. When my friends parrot talking points like that, you know the message has been effective. And although I haven’t talked to these particular people about it since the election, I’d be very surprised if their hatred has dissipated—or ever will.

That seems to be the price of running for president on the Republican ticket these days. How many decent people would be willing to pay it? It’s the flip side of the unhealthy veneration of Obama, by the way. From the start, one of the “tells” that something was very very wrong with Obama was not just the near-worship of the man, but his not-so-subtle encouragement of what you might call a cult of personality.

An ominous sign, both psychologically and politically.

Slow news day today

The New Neo Posted on by

When there’s a slow news day these days I think “good.”

Republicans and conservatives (not always the same thing) have been feeling pretty low since the election. Elements of cynicism, anger, depression, resignation, and bleak humor swirl around the blogosphere. Some people have even stopped reading and withdrawn into their non-political shells.

I can’t say I blame them. Sometimes I’m tempted to join them, but I have no plans for that. First of all, I have too much to say! Second of all, blogging is a habit that’s hard to break. Third of all—you guys.

The Muslim Brotherhood struts its stuff

The New Neo Posted on by

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

Predictable, predictable, predictable, predictable.

As I wrote in February of 2011, not long after the whole Egyptian joyride began:

Amidst all the speculation, I think we discount the possibility of an Islamist state at our peril””and, to speak bluntly, those who discount it are fools, no matter how learned they may be.

The Muslim Brotherhood””the Islamist fundamentalist group based in Egypt””is such a fine name. Who could be against brotherhood (well, a few feminists; but you know what I mean)? The history of the group is a chilling one, however.

Etcetera, etcetera, and so forth—and on and on through tons of posts, including my very first one when the crisis began, in which I wrote:

I have been concerned from the start about the possible influence and popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, a currently-banned Islamist fundamentalist group that has its roots in Egypt in the earlier part of the twentieth century…As a person who remembers the turmoil of the Iranian revolution of 1979””the different groups temporarily united for the Shah’s overthrow and then jockeying for position (vainly) against the fundamentalist Islamists who quickly established their dominance””I have to say the situation makes me nervous.

I must once again say that I claim no special expertise or prescience. This development was very obviously a serious risk from the start, and the Obama administration appeared not to understand that—or if they did understand it (and they gave absolutely no indication of it), to not care.

Fifty-three percent of Americans have made up their minds that Obama is innocent and Republicans guilty before the thing has even happened

The New Neo Posted on by

And that really explains an awful lot, doesn’t it?

The negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” (can somebody please suggest a good alternative way to refer to that topic?) are ongoing and really have just begun. Bob Woodward (no conservative he) wrote an entire book about the previous set of negotiations and made it clear that although neither side was entirely innocent, “particular blame” fell on the president.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that this has not played itself out yet, 53% of respondents in a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, say that Republicans would be to blame if we go over that fiscal cliff:

While 53 percent of those surveyed say the GOP would (and should) lose the fiscal cliff blame game, just 27 percent say President Obama would be deserving of more of the blame. Roughly one in 10 (12 percent) volunteer that both sides would be equally to blame.

Those numbers are largely unchanged from a Post-Pew survey conducted three weeks ago and suggest that for all of the back and forth in Washington on the fiscal cliff, there has been little movement in public perception.

Well, of course there hasn’t been. Republicans present and past are always to blame, even for things that haven’t happened yet. Everybody knows that.

And people seem to think it won’t affect them personally, as well, although it will affect the country as a whole:

Roughly two-thirds of all Americans say that not meeting the Dec. 31 deadline would have “major” consequences for the U.S. economy, but just 43 percent believe that it would have a “major effect” on their personal finances ”” despite the fact that taxes would go up on the vast majority of the population on Jan. 1 if no deal can be reached.

You may note also that, if you look at the poll itself, although 27% gave Obama the blame, the rest (20%) said “both equally,” “neither,” or “no opinion.” Also, if you look at the more detailed breakdown of the demography of respondents, more Democrats than Republicans have made up their minds already, and the most even-handed and/or open-minded (although the majority of them still blaming Republicans) were Independents.

What sexy was like in the 50s

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this video buried in an old comment, and I think it deserves a wider viewing. It’s of Gene Kelly and Tamara Toumanova dancing Kelly’s choreography in the movie “Invitation to the Dance,” which was made in 1952 but not released till four years later.

Toumanova was a ballet dancer and Kelly was–well, Gene Kelly. It’s all done without showing even a bit of lascivious skin from Toumanova (except her long, long, superlong legs). Not a single crotch is grabbed; no bumps are ground nor pelvises thrust, except just for a moment and in the most demure manner possible.

But both of the dancers are so hot they practically sizzle. Toumanova’s appeal lies not just in her dancing but in what she does with her face; watch her expression, especially during the cigarette lighting part.

Those cigarettes are one of the anomalies in this dance—you’d never see that today. But what you’d really never see is choreography that’s so sensual rather than overtly sexual.

And man, what great shoes she’s got on:

When you’re being audacious, it helps to have the Times on your side

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the many reasons Obama is able to be so bold—nay, audacious—in his negotiations with Republicans is that he is secure in the knowledge that he will get the help of articles such as this one in that reliable old Democratic shill, the NY Times. Dismiss the Times if you will, but it remains highly respected by a ton of people and influences the beliefs of a host of others.

The paper is shameless and yet oh-so-restrained and dignified in spinning its meme of a meek, kind, conciliatory president who wasn’t tough enough with Republicans in his first term and now is getting just a wee bit bolder (they do everything but say “taking the gloves off”: headline, “Criticized as Weak in Past Talks, Obama Takes Harder Line”)

I’m sure Obama’s base (who would prefer he put the Republicans in front of a firing squad and get it over with) “criticized” Obama as “weak” last term. And there’s no doubt his line now is “harder.” So you see, the Times is merely telling the truth, as usual.

Never mind that former fair-haired boy Bob Woodward has written a book that made it clear the truth was otherwise. Apparently Woodward is only useful to the Times when he advances stories that help The Cause, so this sort of thing can be ignored:

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration’s early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: “We have the votes. F— ’em,” he’s quoted in the book as saying…

As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats [not just Republicans] complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a “growing feeling of incredulity” as negotiations meandered.

“The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles,” Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen’s thinking…

One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation’s long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.

The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as “changing the basic social compact in America.” Ryan left the speech “genuinely ripped,” Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in “game-on demagoguery” rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.

“I can’t believe you poisoned the well like that,” Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.

But those halcyon days are over. No more Mr. Nice Guy President.

[NOTE: I would like to add that the Republicans are a majority in the House. It’s easy to forget that. I’m not an expert on the negotiations between presidents and Congresses in previous administrations, but it seems to me that presidents had at least some perceived need to defer somewhat to the majority to get the votes to pass the legislation. Obama is able to dispense with that because he knows the press will never blame him for being unreasonable, and he plans to blame the Republicans for everything that goes wrong, with the press’s cooperation. And he knows the majority of the public will buy this story.

There’s another related reason for Obama’s stance, and that is that he doesn’t seem to much care whether he gets the legislation he says he wants. It would be nice, of course, to win in that respect. But blaming the Republicans for whatever fiscal mess happens to ensue in the absence of an agreement would be just as good a result—perhaps even better—in his eyes.]

[ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, the WaPo works hard on the “detached, in seclusion” Romney theme, as Ann Althouse points out.

How does the WaPo do that? By showing a photo of Romney on a roller coaster, and quoting him as writing to a buddy “who’s having a liver transplant soon: ‘I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.'”

Detached. Secluded.]

There’s the fiscal cliff, and then there’s…

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a good summary of the lousy position the Republicans in Congress are in vis a vis the so-called fiscal cliff.

To make a long story short: between Scylla and Charybdis.

However, I’m partial to the suggestion that Republicans in the House should pass the Simpson-Bowles recommendations and send them on to the Senate:

Simpson-Bowles is far more responsible than what President Obama is currently offering and probably far better than a slapped together grand bargain made by Obama and Speaker Boehner behind closed doors as a deadline closes in…It is also a fully formed plan with on-the-record bipartisan support and near-universal acceptance as “reasonable” and “sober” by the media and Beltway types. A lot of that is lip service from folks who felt rather certain the plan would never be seriously considered, but it still makes it hard to frame Republicans as obstinate obstructionists when they offer up the plan of none other than Mssrs. Simpson and Bowles…Rejecting it out of hand to allow liberals to continue living in debt denial might be a move so irresponsible as to make even the press notice.

Would Congressional Republicans ever have the guts for a jujitsu move like that? Dunno, but a person can hope. Because they really have few other options.

Not that Simpson-Bowles would ever go into effect. The Senate wouldn’t pass it. But it least it has the possibility of embarrassing the Democrats.

But has anyone noticed this little element of Obama’s “offer”?

To add injury to insult, the President is also demanding carte blanche in the future to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally; wresting this power from Congress, from debate or oversight. This would give this most profligate of Presidents an unlimited credit card to continue running up the national debt at his whim.

Years ago I wrote (although I can’t seem to locate it now) that if Obama were elected to a second term he would be unrestrained by any need to appeal to moderates. It turns out I was wrong—because even before his re-election, during the 2012 campaign, Obama was unrestrained by the need to appeal to moderates (as the clear-eyed Stanley Kurtz pointed out in October, before Obama’s victory).

So at this point Obama really doesn’t have to pretend to be moderate, even for a moment. Thus he can begin cementing his long-held goal of consolidating even more power unto himself—witness the proposal that he take on Congress’s role vis a vis the debt ceiling. Is it even constitutional to do so? And if it were, who has the power to stop him? Just try it, suckers, he says.

Does Obama think the Republicans will cave on this particular point and cede that power? But even if they don’t, his own audaciousness in suggesting it must excite him no end.