“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”

The title I have chosen for this entry is unusual for me, as it is a quote from a non-founder. It is, in fact, a quote from Ronald Reagan. I have used it because it captures perfectly and succinctly a principle on which the Founders expounded at considerable length and which served as the basis for the very design of the Constitution.

Today, I’m feeling succinct. I’ll not burden you with the quotes from the founders. You can look them up yourselves. I’m moving straight on to Exhibit A:

If Our State Wanted a Bridge…

It is very seldom indeed that I am surprised—much less pleasantly surprised—by politics today. My stoic acceptance of the sorry state of our federalist system of government has very rarely let me down in predicting the course of political events. Some people call this pessimism. Others call it negativism. I call it the bleak reality of the here and now.

You can imagine my astonishment, then, when as I was recovering from Thursday night’s orgiastic celebration of entitlements I was greeted with the news of McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I was blown clean out of the water. Now, I was not taken by surprise in quite the same way that many were, because I was already quite familiar with the Iron Lady of the North, and had been loudly touting her merits as a solid Veep choice for months. Never for a minute did I think McCain would actually pick her, though.

And then her “introductory” speech… ahhh… it was just the soothing balm I needed after Progressifest 08. She hit all the right points, with just one unfortunate (yet, I must admit, expedient) reference to the abominable Hillary, and she threw out this beautiful gem to all the true originalist federalists out there:

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.

…wait for it, here it comes: the money quote…

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.

Mmmm…. yessssssss!!! That hit the sweet spot. With simple, down-home logic and folksy intonations, she has struck the chord of logic with a clear, ringing tone. Buried somewhere in the morass of today’s politics lie the pure and simple truths on which this nation was founded. With a rather simple turn of phrase, she plucked them out and brushed them off for us to regard and consider.

‘Mere Originalism’ vs. Fleming’s purported ‘Balkanization’

Poking around for commentary on originalism, I stumbled across a summary review of an APSA (American Political Science Assoc.) forum on “The New Originalism”. I’m going to set aside for the moment the oxymoronic absurdity inherent in the designation “New Originalism”. The panel featured an “all star” lineup of experts in legal theory to comment on the merits of “New Originalism” and originalism in general. One of these panelists was James Fleming.

For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Fleming—sorry… Doktor Flemming: we musn’t neglect the credentials of his Piled Higher and Deeper¹— he is a noted (and particularly uncompromising and vehement) critic of originalist constitutional interpretation. Most of his ilk concede that originalism has at least a place in constitutional interpretation. Professor Fleming, on the other hand, stands among a select few who actually deprecate its inclusion among valid perspectives in jurisprudence and seem to view it with contempt.

Fleming’s contribution to the discussion, from the report given by the “live blogger” cited above, follows basically the same line as his arguments have in the past, that originalism is splintered and that this fractiousness points to the inherent weaknesses of trying to get at any original meaning. He cites forms of originalism centering on framer’s intent, ratifier’s interpretation, textual interpretation, semantic value, etc. as evidence that the elusive “original meaning” is too nebulous and that the only thing that the various breeds of originalism have in common is a rejection of a “moral” reading of the constitution.

Firstly, it disgusts me that Fleming equates the moral relativism with which non-originalists reinterpret the Constitution with a “moral reading”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole basis of originalism lies in the notion that there are immutable truths that govern men and society and that our Constitution was written on the basis of those principles. The effort to crystallize and apply these principles to modern circumstances is the full scope of originalism. Any other mode of interpretation must, by definition, reject at least one of two notions:

Federal Table Scraps: the Disappearing State Identity

I recently ran across an AP story, singular to me in how it captured the sorry state of today’s “federal” system of government. Please, take a look at it. It’s really a gem. Savor, for a moment, the casual manner in which it describes local governments begging at the door of the federal government for the means to provide necessary services to citizens:

The conference’s president, Mayor Doug Palmer of Trenton, N.J., called the new dollars “a start” but said “certainly more is necessary.”
“We’ve asked for more cops,” Palmer said after Mukasey’s speech. “That didn’t happen. So we’re looking to increase the cops funding to put more police on the street.”
He added: “We’re looking for any kinds of money that you can use.”

The obsequious way in which Mukasey’s concerns (valid, though immaterial) are parroted by the mendicant mayors to smooth the hustle really sticks in the craw. The most remarkable aspect of the story is that the author and everyone cited in the article fail to question the basic premise of the executive action being taken: that the federal government is somehow responsible for providing funding for local law enforcement.

For Progressives, the Founding was America’s “Dark Ages”

I started on a posting the other day about how a Supreme Court “dream team” of founding fathers would respond to the 2nd Amendment case currently in consideration, but my research and fact gathering for that piece (which I may yet publish when I think it’s cooked long enough) took me in a completely different direction that has leavened my thoughts with much more inspiration/consternation than the original topic. I stumbled across an editorial piece on USA Today’s website entitled “A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all” by Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA Today’s board of contributors.

For the politically uninitiated, these credentials indicate that he is almost certainly a committed progressive (or, “flaming liberal“, in today’s history-agnostic vernacular). Indeed, Mr. Turley himself coyly implies throughout his introduction that he belongs to the “progressives and polite people” he is referring to, though he will directly admit only to being an “academic” (which, in turn, supports my long-standing theory that in contemporary academia, progressivism is not merely the norm: it is a presumption). Reading over his blog, I found ample confirmation of the appropriateness of that label, but also found plenty to convince me that he is possessed of an unusual level of intellectual honesty for a progressive. This fact makes his assertions in the article all the more interesting.

“Potent Engines”: Washington on the Subversive Nature of Faction

I have been stumped about which topic to first expound upon, so I decided to peruse the headlines for inspiration. My eyes were met with the usual carnage of partisan nastiness strewn across the headlines: rank accusations founded upon distortions of half-truths gleaned from anonymous sources, grievous stretches of logic and rhetoric weaving a dainty dance to charm a jaded constituency into some convenient perspective, and of course the latest juicy tidbits of scandal that always lurk around the periphery of the powerful… especially the powerfully partisan.

Here was ample meat for digestion, surely… but which story? And did I really feel like wallowing in the mud just for the purpose of classifying it? A virgin posting so quickly defiled? No! So I have opted instead to write about all of it.

Where does it all come from anyway, this partisan posturing? How did we end up with these political parties which none seem to appreciate but upon which our governance so completely depends? Well, as you learned in high school, one of the great innovations of the American government is the two party system. It’s a brilliant system framed by our Founding Fathers to eliminate the chaotic effects of having multiple parties and factions with shifting alliances and coalitions. It was with this in mind that they firmly established this system in our founding documents.

Right?

Our survey says… X! That’s right folks, your high school civics teacher lied to you. It’s not his fault, though. He attended a liberal arts school where his professors lied to him too. Kids haven’t studied the full text of the Constitution for a couple of decades now. If they did, they would notice something peculiar: there’s not one single mention of parties. There is no reference whatsoever to parties, factions, or caucuses. Seems an odd omission, don’t you think?

Incipit Commentarius

Welcome to For a Course of Years. Please read the “About” page linked on the right to get your bearings. In the coming weeks I will begin putting down some of my thoughts and perhaps the general public will find them of worth. Then again, perhaps not. In either case, this journal will have served its purpose.

A few points at the outset:

• Please, don’t dare call this a “blog”. I prefer the expanded designation “web log”, or (better still) online journal. Everything implied by the latin “commentarius” would be most fitting, both in denotation and etymology. This journal is antithetical to the culture that permeates the “blogosphere” and other such innovations of the AOL generation. Course of Years is to “blogs” what Polaner All-Fruit is to “jelly”.