Streetcar Line
Celebrating Limits
Support for smaller government is a mainstream position.
The single biggest myth in American politics is that advocacy of limited government is a fringe position. The way to attract “moderates” and “independents,” we are told, is for conservatives to adopt some sort of stratagem that involves using government actively but wisely and efficiently, for the right ends, in order to attract the target audience du jour: suburbanites, exurbanites, Bobos, soccer moms, Hispanics, metrosexuals, or any number of other strata of supposedly poll-tested exotica.
Balderdash.
As Tuesday’s elections showed, support for limited government remains a mainstream position. Deficit-spending makes majorities angry. Leviathan’s tentacles, its rules and regulations, infuriate most Americans. Big bureaucracies are as popular as swine flu. And far more people than not still just want to be left alone.
Nearly a year ago I traced the electoral success of Republicans when they do restrain spending versus those times when they don’t. Hint: When they save, they win; when they spend, they lose.
The swing voters in most elections aren’t David Brooks’s mythical Bobos in paradise; the swing voters are the Ross Perot/Jesse Ventura “raging moderates” who think that if they must pay their bills, then the government darn well ought to pay its bills as well. But not by raising their taxes, because that makes it harder for them to pay their own bills. These voters work hard; they already give to government far more, financially, than they will ever get in return from it in either cash or services (with the exception that they know they can never repay the unquantifiable sacrifices or risks taken by our uniformed personnel); and they resent like hell when some pencil pusher tries to tell them what to do. They tend to be disaffected voters who wish poxes on both major political houses: Sometimes they stay away from the polls in large numbers, but at other times they turn out en masse, sometimes in favor of a candidate who galvanizes them but often just to “send a message” against incumbents, against the status quo, or against Washington in general. Even when they are “aginners,” though, they also are motivated more by love than hate: love for their country, their freedom, or their families. They are angry not as much because of what they want to tear down, as because they feel a threat to or diminishment of what they most fiercely want to protect.
And these voters insist on balanced budgets. They hate government bailouts and takeovers. They despise government mandates. And they really, really, really hate government pork.
While it would be a mistake to type-cast these voters too narrowly, it is fair to say that one reasonably representative example is Joe the Plumber Wurzelbacher. John McCain was flailing around like a drowning drunk until he grabbed onto Wurzelbacher as if Joe the Plumber were a life-preserver. And Joe struck a chord, clearly stopping McCain’s free-fall last year and starting a belated comeback that made the election a six-point affair rather than a 12-point loss. Joe was, by any measure, a fiscal conservative — and he also was, attitudinally, a Perotista through and through.
Bob McDonnell in Virginia ran on a platform of limited government without tax hikes. He won in an unprecedented landslide. Chris Christie in New Jersey lost an immense lead until, in the final ten days, he finally started emphasizing conservative economic positions. Just as had happened when Christine Todd Whitman embraced that low-tax emphasis 16 years ago, also in the very closing stages of what had been a floundering campaign, Chris Christie’s greater focus on limiting government came just in time to pull out a victory.
In the New York congressional special election, Doug Hoffman’s ability to vault past Dede Scozzafava was fueled largely by his insistence on fiscal propriety. Had Scozzafava not supported the Obama stimulus package, she may well have found a way to win the race. As it was, Hoffman earned 46 percent of the vote despite being less-than-familiar with some important local issues, despite being buried on an unfamiliar ballot line, despite lacking polish or experience as a candidate, despite having Scozzafava take 6 percent of the vote on the GOP line, despite not technically living in the district, and even though Scozzafava endorsed his Democratic opponent. As it was, the Democrat, Bill Owens, publicly rejected the “public option” on health care and worked hard to present himself as a proponent of a sound fisc.
Much more could be said about that race, and about the media’s misrepresentation of its dynamics and of the entire narrative of the various races nationwide. Much more will be written on those subjects in this very space. For now, though, Beltway Republicans should learn the lesson, once and for all, that if they do not fight to limit government, there is no other good reason for them even to exist as a party. And voters will recognize that the GOP solons have no reason to exist, and treat them accordingly.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/05/celebrating-limits
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Back in the Fray
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 6:44AM
Celebrating Limits – Spectator.org | Swine Flu Provisions links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 7:01AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Celebrating Limits [spectator.org] o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 11.5.09 @ 7:12AM
I hate to bring up a sore subject, but would Olympia Snowe respect this opinion?
Bram| 11.5.09 @ 1:25PM
You are right - Olympia Snowe is a sore subject.
When the topic is taxes, she calls herself a responsible "fiscal conservative" by opposing cuts. When it comes to spending, she's a like a drunken sailor on pay-day. The difference between her and a tax-and-spend liberal exists only in her imagination.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 7:22AM
"support for limited government remains a mainstream position"
"Leviathan's tentacles, its rules and regulations, infuriate most Americans. Big bureaucracies are as popular as swine flu. And far more people than not still just want to be left alone."
"When they save, they win; when they spend, they lose."
I couldn't agree more. A good place to start, I'm sure we can all agree, is to gut the National Security State, slash "defense" (more accurately, "offense") spending, and drastically cut funding for our domestic surveillance regime. No call for "small government" or "fiscal responsibility" can be taken even slightly seriously that does not address "defense" spending and our massive and massively wasteful world-wide military regime.
It is entirely inconsistent to claim to advocate for "small government" while insisting that this same government rule over and police the entire world. A "small government" is one which fits within the boundaries of the Constitution and the borders of these United States. A "small government" is incompatible with a state of perpetual war, with bloody conquest and the maintanence and cultivation of vast and far-flung overseas dominions. That much is inarguable.
One may either advocate for small government, or advocate for the sort of leviathan state necessary to lead and police Planet Earth. To advocate for both is to expose oneself as a liar - the sort of double-talking Beltway hack that promises Americans they can have low taxes and every government service they can imagine.
Simon Templar| 11.5.09 @ 8:49AM
Once again, Toddard, when we, conservatives, mean small government we mean limited government according to the constitution which clearly states that our governement IS responsible for national security and providing for the defense of the nation. What we do not like is its intrusion into areas that it was not meant to be involved. We also object to its continual grasp and spending of our private wealth without our consensus or input. The US does not have dominions, regimes, and is not in a state of perpetual war for bloody conquest or is a police state. You are the liar. I am sick and tired of your thinly disguised left wing rantings. You abuse your right of free speech and this web site. I think it is arguable like most of your false premises.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 9:16AM
"when we, conservatives, mean small government we mean limited government according to the constitution which clearly states that our governement IS responsible for national security and providing for the defense of the nation."
Indeed - that is exactly what we mean.
"What we do not like is its intrusion into areas that it was not meant to be involved"
Correct - like nation-building.
Monomania| 11.5.09 @ 12:19PM
I see SLT continues to beat his only drum (aka "Bush Derangement Syndrome").
SOMEone frequently pesters us with "definitition of monomania" posts...hmmm...now just WHO was that, again???
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 12:50PM
How curious. My opposition to Obama's nation-building scheme in Afghanistan is an example of "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
Although considering how identical the policies of both Bush and Obama are (massive expansion of the federal government, extreme secrecy, reckless spending, extreme fiscal irresponsibility, massive expansion of federal social programs, pro-open borders, pro-rendition, pro-torture, anti-Constitution, anti-Rule of Law etc) you might have a point. I opposed these policies under Bush and continue to oppose them under Obama. What is odd is that so many of those who defended Bush's autocratic and anti-Constitutional crimes now attack Obama for what amounts to a general continuance of those same policies. These people are the mirror images of those Liberals who howled in feigned outrage at Bush's un-American, bloodthirsty warmongering but defend Obama's.
This indefensible behavior can be explained by the fact that these people are not loyal to their country - they are loyal to their party, which is to say to the sweaty-handed shysters and crooks who've conned them.
The fact is that when member of party (Y) implements or promotes policy (X), it is (Y) that determines whether most people object or praise, rather than (X).
alyeska| 11.5.09 @ 5:29PM
owwwww!
Len| 11.5.09 @ 6:15PM
Templar, the words nor the notion "national security" do not appear in the US constitution. It is common defense, and that certainly precludes having a military presence in 130 countries, coming to the rescue of a country like Kuwait and then imposing sanctions on Iraq.
I remind you it was not a country invading us, but people coming due to our ridiculous non discriminatory immigration policy, and that the supposed reason for initiating aggression against Iraq was the threat of a dirty bomb. How was waging a non congressionally declared war against a country necessary to prevent this?
I tire of you neocons who do the same as the liberals and use catch phrases such as "national interests", or "national security" to evade what are to be the binding limits of the US constitution. Frankly we need a military here to abolish and then institute a proper federalism, but noooooo we fall for the sleight of hand and turn our attention to the "bad guys" elsewhere. Meanwhile Mr. 100 years McCain deprive us of our liberty here with BCRA and Mr. evil axis Bush doesn't bother to veto it. That is merely one example of the false conservative GOP being the flip side of the statist democrats.
Let me go further, what gives us the right to interfere in other nations and dictate to them? Is it that we are bigger and mightier? Does might then make right? What will we do when other countries start ganging up and dictating to us? You say we are not in a perpetual war, yet we were involved in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, etc. Why have we done this? To make other countries fall in line with our wishes, yet you say this is not seeking conquest, how absurd.
Ken(Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 8:52AM
AHHHHH! The blessed scroll button.
alyeska| 11.5.09 @ 5:31PM
whadda you care, OT, you can barely read :)
TennesseeVolunteer| 11.5.09 @ 7:53AM
Well done, Quin.
You have identified the main principles that we should always keep at the top of our mind - Less government, more individual freedom.
A strong defense will be absolutely necessary because our threats from within and without have never been greater. We have an Islamic threat that will take a decade to push back into their boundaries.
Becky| 11.5.09 @ 8:00AM
Although there is waste in government at all levels, to single out defense as the source of wasteful spending is not the current problem. Any large government program encourages fraud and waste (Katrina, TARP, ARA). Large domestic expenses (education, welfare, underfunded government pensions, for example), not only spends productive citizens earnings poorly, it encourages more state dependency while decreasing liberties. We are almost to the point of lunacy when you hear stories about getting into serious trouble for watching your friends' kids before they get on the school bus, because you don't have a license to run a day care. And even more disturbing is that a neighbor made an anonymous complaint.
A government that lets you live and let live is best. It is the let live part that many politicians have a hard time with.
If anything, those who are socially or conservatively liberal can live together better with a small government than when the government is large. When the government grows to personally interfer in lives, it must chose sides.
For example: most people get their health insurance from an employer. The policies cover spouses. In the gay marriage debate, this is cited as a reason for making gay marriage legal. If health insurance and care were not so heavily influenced by government regulation, tax structures, and spending already; and most people paid for their health care directly, it would not be an issue.
Less government = bigger tent. Now that so many people do not want or know how to be responsible for their own needs , and others prey upon that fact for political gain, limited government becomes harder and harder.
Richard Baker| 11.5.09 @ 8:27AM
The Founding Fathers are STILL the most profound political thinkers in history. Following their advice IS truly American. The Kenyan and his mob are not American at their foundation. Let's see. Washington and Jefferson or The Kenyan and Jimmy Carter. Hmmmm. Choices, choices, choices.
alyeska| 11.5.09 @ 5:36PM
really? "...the most profound political thinkers in history." you really believe that?
you need to get out more
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 8:47AM
"The Founding Fathers are STILL the most profound political thinkers in history. Following their advice IS truly American."
Indeed.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
- George Washington
"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies"
- Thomas Jefferson
"(America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
- John Quincy Adams
Monomania...| 11.5.09 @ 12:29PM
SLT, I refer you once again to your frequent "definition of monomania" posts.
Becky - AMEN, SISTER! Why someone (SLT) would carve out just about the SOLE area where the Feds are on solid constitutional footing, which is - if anyone looks at the actual numbers even when we are on a war footing, NOT EVEN A PLURALITY of Federal spending let alone a lion's share - and say "That little slice over THERE is what needs to be cut FIRST, while we leave the TRILLIONS of unaccountable, unconstitutional social spending not to mention the TRILLIONS of unaccountable, unconstitutional regulatory costs in place!"...and consider himself to be the only "true conservative" on this site...well, the mind boggles at such UTTER self-UN-awareness!!
btw that's not to say that there is no wasteful military spending, nor that we can't amicably debate military policy, including the size, extent and purpose of our armed forces. (In which case, I would argue that abandoning the rest of the world to the tender mercies of Muslim savages may not be the best place to seek military savings...) But in terms of $ and freedom and getting us back to a constitutional gov't...we've CERTAINLY got MANY MUCH BIGGER fish to fry!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 8:54AM
AHHHHH! the blessed scroll button.
Bilwick| 11.5.09 @ 9:02AM
Considering that the country was founded on limited government principles derived from Locke and other classical liberals, why that position should now be considered "fringe" is a question worth pondering. I know when I say I am a libertarian people react like Americans used to react if you had identified yourself as a socialist. That the idea of self-ownership--that your life and property belong to you and not the State--is now considered kooky tells you something, but I'm not sure what.
Bilwick| 11.5.09 @ 9:04AM
I'm also curious where Toddard would be in favor of national defense. Or is he taking the Rothabardian head-in-the-sand position that the US has no enemies that wish to do Americans harm?
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 9:13AM
"I'm also curious where Toddard would be in favor of national defense"
de⋅fense
–noun
1. resistance against attack; protection:
de·fense (dĭ-fěns')
n.
1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
The simple answer to your question is: always. I am always in favor of America defending against attack. When America is attacked, or if there is a clear and present danger of imminent attack, then America should *defend* herself. No non-interventionist believes America should not *defend* herself. What we categorically oppose are aggressive wars, wars waged against enemies who pose no threat, who have not attacked America and who have not been discovered to be planning an attack against America.
R Martin| 11.5.09 @ 10:02AM
I don't know if it was Carl Von Clausewitz, Jack Dempsey or Don Corleone who said, "The best defense is a good offense", but the principle is sound and well tested. For example, most sensible people would use it if they encountered an aggressive rabid animal while walking along.
Isolationism may have made sense to the Founding Fathers with the country in its infancy, but in today's world of Islamofascists and nut case dictators possessing or seeking nuclear weapons, it is a policy only the looniest leftist would advocate.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 10:30AM
That's fine that you reject the ideals of the Founders. As long as you're honest about it. There's nothing inherently evil about preferring a conquest-fueled Empire over a peaceful Republic, it's just un-American.
R Martin| 11.5.09 @ 2:21PM
The ideals of the Founders were time specific as to offense/defense. The young country had been through a long and costly war, it was heavily indebted, and the emphasis was on westward expansion. However, it did not take long for them to realize that overseas sorties were indeed good defensive strategy as the Barbary Pirates soon learned. Thomas Jefferson did, in fact, go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Hasn't your education taken you this far?
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 3:20PM
Precisely. The Barbary States pledged to attack our ships and enslave our sailors should we refuse to pay them tribute. The threat they posed could not be more clear or present. As I stated earlier: "when America is attacked, or if there is a clear and present danger of imminent attack, then America should *defend* herself"
I do not object to waging war in defense, as I've noted multiple times on this thread alone. And as also I noted above, "what we categorically oppose are aggressive wars, wars waged against enemies who pose no threat, who have not attacked America and who have not been discovered to be planning an attack against America."
It's not that hard to understand.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 10:31AM
"The best defense is a good offense"
Perhaps now that the Iraq debacle has proven this assertion false, it might be time to abandon it.
Alternate Universe?| 11.5.09 @ 12:32PM
Huh? I'm only aware of the Iraq TREMENDOUS SUCCESS STORY. Not sure where you're getting the concept of "debacle" from, except perhaps some alternate universe that your mind likes to frequent.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 12:35PM
Oh - from the thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of slaughtered women and children and from the absolute total failure of the mission, which was to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons that did not exist. Wait - I'm referring to the Iraq War. Are you thinking of something else? Perhaps you are referring to the Falklands War or something of that nature.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 2:17PM
Mr. Toddard,
"[...] and tens of thousands of slaughtered women and children [...]."
Stopped using the phony "1 million civilians killed" and "hundreds of thousands of murdered" statistics, huh?
Glad to see that. It shows the capability to grow in understanding.
Now you just need to identify who did the slaughtering. And that would be mainly Al Qeada in Iraq, followed by Shia and Sunni tribal warfare.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 2:47PM
"Stopped using the phony "1 million civilians killed" and "hundreds of thousands of murdered" statistics, huh?"
Not at all. I just don't have any casualty estimates handy for specifically women and children, and rather than get into another pointless exercise in quibbling it's easier to lowball the number. Whether it is a million or merely hundreds of thousands, the magnitude of the atrocity is still reprehensible and sickening and - to anyone who cares even remotely about American honor - unacceptable.
Anyway your position is already well known - articles that present information you find unpleasant are the product of the Liberal Media, and articles that reinforce what you already believe are the product of Honest Journalism. You've willfully sequestered yourself in the right wing echo chamber. No need to go down that road again.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 3:23PM
Sure, Mr. Toddard, what ever gets you through the night.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 3:28PM
Not going to recommend another Mark Levin book? Haha.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 3:44PM
Did I recommend a book to you?
NOW I am having trouble remembering
Margie| 11.5.09 @ 3:41PM
Isn't Toddard a figment of his own imagination?
alyeska| 11.5.09 @ 5:42PM
what? equivocation on the divinely inspired words of the founding fathers? next you'll be telling us the constitution needs updating and the the bible..oh, wait, you guys are already in the process of editing the bible to rid it of it's liberal stance...never mind.
Everly Waverly| 11.5.09 @ 2:58PM
Definition: S. L.---Slippery Liberal....
Shut the freak-up!!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 10:30AM
Toddard wants to retreat to "Fortress America", (with Superman at the north pole), and let the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.
(uh, until they start landing on our beaches.)
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 10:47AM
Ken thinks that the best way to defend America from attack is to insure that our armed forces are on other side of the globe, as far from America as possible. He thinks that if we just conquer Afghanistan and turn it into Arkansas, terrorism will disappear from the world. He believes that the best way to get Muslims to stop trying to kill us is to slaughter their friends, families and co-religionists. He also advocates open borders and the expansion of the federal government by voting for the GOP. Oh - and he believes (not kidding) that he is a "conservative".
Al Adab| 11.5.09 @ 12:56PM
Morning Ken, Toddard:
Not a bad discussion today. Exactly where does National Defense begin? The error in the current war was indeed "nation building". That is not a job for the military. All America expects is to be left alone to pursue its own way in Freedom.
Now of course we have a government which doesn't believe in the concept of freedom for anyone. It prefers dictators worldwide and the imposition of even thought restrictions on its own people.
Perhaps we can agree that both extremes are outside our desires and trade. Give up regulation in exchange for less Wilsonian foreign policy. Might actually be a fair trade.
Neo-Cons, fiscal Cons, social Cons, Movement Cons, Paleo-Cons, add in a few Libertarians and Randians and wonder why we can't get our collective (forgive the word) act together.
Instead of going after each other, lets focus on the enemy and go after the statists, OK guys?
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 1:01PM
"Instead of going after each other, lets focus on the enemy and go after the statists"
That is the problem - the establishment of a leviathan National Security State, the maintenance of a global military empire and the commitment to perpetual war are the epitome of statism - the expansion of the state is the inevitable result of these policies. It is therefore incoherent and contradictory to advocate for "small government" and the Constitution while also advocating these policies which invariably EXPAND government and do violence to the Constitution.
Conservatives need to remember that war is the health of the state, and that the state is our most dangerous enemy.
Al Adab| 11.5.09 @ 1:08PM
Too one dimentional, SLT. Too myopic.
The threats we face to Liberty are legion and not limited to either foreign action, your "security state" or the bureaucracy of regulators.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 1:53PM
There is no significant threat to American liberty apart from our Federal Gov't. None. The totality of terrorists, Iran, Russia, whomever - none of these actors poses any real threat to our Liberty. There is no plausible scenario whereby our Liberty is destroyed by these pygmies. The most they can do is take some of our lives.
The lone threat to the Liberty of Americans comes from the federal government, period. It has not always been the *lone* threat, but it has always been a significant threat, and the Founders understood this more than anyone.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 2:08PM
Gee, I thought Life was first and most important of our *Liberties*.
How silly of me.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 2:17PM
It's not silly, Nick, if you are incapable of grasping the profound difference between some Americans losing their lives and America itself losing its traditional Liberty - it's just ignorant.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 2:25PM
Therefore, some of us have to sacrifice our greatest of rights, and gift from God, so you can talk to a terrorist overseas without the "government" listening in?
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 2:28PM
Uh... no. What an active imagination you have.
We patriotic Americans, though, do - as a general rule - value America's Liberties over our own lives. Look into the Founding Fathers for more on that.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 2:59PM
What's this WE, white-man?
No, Americans risk and lay down their lives to stop people who would threaten to take their families rights and liberties away. You know...like...their...LIVES.
They don't do it so some hippy can burn an American flag or some mugger can have his Miranda rights read to him or so you can make overseas phone calls without someone listening in on your conversation.
If I remember correctly, you are the one who knows nothing about how to treat unlawful combatants, military tribunals, or the Laws of Nations. Subjects the Founders were thoroughly knowledgeable.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 3:21PM
As usual, you don't remember correctly.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 3:30PM
Well then, please enlighten all of us. What have I remembered incorrectly?
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 5:45PM
Oh - that I am "the one who knows nothing about how to treat unlawful combatants, military tribunals, or the Laws of Nations."
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 6:16PM
Anyone who has read your posts has seen how you've gotten your panties in a bunch over the Patriot Act, re-writing the FISA statute, and Geneva protections for unlawful combatants.
Only people who are ignorant of the history of the Law of Nations, laws of war, and our martial law tradition hold positions such as yours.
S.L. Toddard| 11.6.09 @ 7:51AM
Sorry, Nick, but you've failed - miserably - time and again to prove those points. Each and every argument you've brought forward has been comprehensively annihilated. By me.
It's rather sad that I have to repeat this to you (you have a terrible, though selective, memory) but the Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees, including accused Terrorists:
http://www.acslaw.org/node/10944
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 2:34PM
My mistake, that should have been: Geneva POW protections.
But, in case you would still make the same argument, let me dispatch it posthaste:
1.- CONSERVATIVES think Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is bad law. Just like Roe, Doe, Plessy, Dread Scott, the Warren court, etc. Suprem Court Justices are not infallible.
2.- I'm not surprised a TRUE CONSERVATIVE like yourself would hang your argument on a SCOTUS case decided by the LIBERALS on the court. Or will you now claim Stephens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Bryer are great defenders of American Liberty?
3.- The ACS is the LIBERAL version of The Federalist Society, a CONSERVATIVE organization. Again, I'm not surprised.
4.- I've never argued that detainees should be treated inhumanely. I'm a Roman Catholic. Everyone should be treated as a creature created in the image and likeness of God. Harsh interrogation techniques and trials by military commission do not violate this principle.
Adam Smith| 11.5.09 @ 1:47PM
Ken,
We already have "Fortress America".
Superman is in the White House and the world IS going to hell in a handbasket.
Your comment makes me wonder if you are perhaps a white male and are unwilling to reconognize the real situation and give credit to Glorious Leader, our Nobel Laureate in Chief.
Perhaps one of Newt's buddies needs to check this post out...
Galen| 11.5.09 @ 9:10AM
Mr. S.L. Toddard is not a lefty,he is a paleoconservative.I respect his position tho I don't agree with all points. He is not the enemy.
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 1:48PM
Baloney. Toddard is a protectionist Leftist. And an anti-Semite. If you can respect the way he lies about and degrades the United States and our ally, Israel, in his posts it only reveals your own character.
He indeed is an enemy.
WestWright| 11.5.09 @ 9:42AM
Thanks Galen for the accurate peg on Mr. Toddard as a PaleoCon. I thought as much and tend to agree with a lot of PaleoCon thinking. Limiting Government was the basis for our Constitution and the founder's fear's of foreign entanglements was valid as they realized that War is the quickest way for Government to justify the taking of power & property. Another reason that we must have a strong defense is to avoid war and we seem to get a War whenever our Defense has been weakened and marginalized by the Left's mismanagement, see FDR / WW2.
Margie| 11.5.09 @ 3:51PM
I know! Let's look in our history books for pictures of fortresses so we can build some. Quickly! Before that Nuke arrives!
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 10:19AM
Celebrating Limits | Republican Party of Door County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Catherine| 11.5.09 @ 11:16AM
Amen to Toddard and WestWright. We could limit government quite effectively by withdrawing our forces from most of the places they are currently based, and returning them to home shores. I will also suggest that Republicans wake up to the fact that it is not very persuasive to call for limited government, and then attack the Democrats for making cuts to Medicare.
Blackwatch| 11.7.09 @ 11:44AM
Well said madam! I suggest that the Korean Peninsula troopers and all Balkans area trooper be relocated to the Southern US border to complete the non-completed boarder fence and also to various sea ports to begin REAL inspection of incomming cargo.
Adam Smith| 11.5.09 @ 11:43AM
Agreed Quin and to the point.
Unfortunately I am still not sure the GOP gets it. Rick Santorum was just on Fox saying what a lousy canidate Doug Hoffman was, wasn't a Republican, didn't live in the district blah, blah....
The message so far has been pretty uniform from the GOP leadership in attempting to spin a positive party label, all while ignoring reality.
Santorum's comments are indicative of the work still ahead of us. He sought to distance himself from the only canidate who seemed to be running on passion and a sense of civic duty. A man who is a job creator instead of a professional pol. A guy who actually understands what it means to not look to the public teat for his sustenance and seemed to be as close as we have yet come to Mr. Smith goes to Washinton (down to the somewhat shy akwardness).
So instead of talking about Hoffman's strengths, the short term tactic of distancing themselves and marginalizing him prevailed because he was not an R & narrowly lost.
Not only did Santorum basically call Hoffman a carpetbagger & "bad candidate", but he allowed the Pelosi nonsense about the "historic" victory (more than 200 years was quote from the Dem) for Owens, but failed to even mention all the shennanigans on the part of the Dems to pull this stunt off. Not even going to touch on the Rep. handling (engineered disaster).
The point is that the message following this fiasco seems to be party above principle and obfuscation when confronted with what the message really should have been; Get back to the core belief of a minimally intrusive govenment.
Rambling done, off to the coffee pot.
Thoughts?
Margie| 11.5.09 @ 3:37PM
That's weird. If Santorum said that Hoffman isn't a Republican, it shows he's a complete idiot. I heard Mr. Hoffman on the radio. He said he is a life-long Republican. He ran on the Conservative Party line due to the Party Bosses choosing of Scuzzo. I had a lot of respect for Rick Santorum. If he is indeed taking this stance it's really too bad.
KarlinPhoenix| 11.5.09 @ 11:55AM
To Catherine:
You stated: "We could limit government quite effectively by withdrawing our forces from most of the places they are currently based, and returning them to home shores".
What would you have our military do while living on base, in America?
The federal government does NOT want to secure our borders, even though Islamic Jihadis are being smuggled in from Mexico (at a cost of $20,000 to $25,000 each). Arizona sees 20,000 illegal aliens PER WEEK invade our state.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 12:41PM
"What would you have our military do while living on base, in America?"
Guard our country and stand ready for when needed.
"The federal government does NOT want to secure our borders, even though Islamic Jihadis are being smuggled in from Mexico"
Correct - the Republican and Democrat parties are staunchly open-borders. In the decade-plus the GOP controlled Congress and the 8 years they had the White House they actively maintained an open border with Mexico, allowing millions of unidentified illegals to stream through. This proves their anti-terrorist credentials to be as false and flimsy as their patriotism. The terrorist threat - what their is of it, and it is greatly overstated - is a domestic issue, related to immigration and border security. The GOP tactic of sending our military to the far side of the globe while leaving our doors wide open to anyone who wants to get in is, quite plainly, insane. It is the literal inversion of the correct policy, which would be to bring our troops home and redirect the treasure and energy wasted in conquering far-away nations into protecting our own.
Bydand76| 11.5.09 @ 4:53PM
Toddard,
Ok. I know we have had our differences in the past and you make a lot of valid points that I agree with and some that I disagree with as well. With that being said, I think you are being somewhat one-sided in your view on this subject.
Your position on non-intervention seems somewhat ignorant of the fact that non-intervention is a pipe dream at best.
The problem here is who decides to make the call that America is in imminent danger?
Does the intelligence community make that call?
The President?
Congress?
We The People?
Non intervention is always trumped by the simple fact of a diverse and wide-ranging spectrum of OPFOR who would readily do America harm. The terrorist threat ( and you make a grave mistake in underestimating it) is very real and quite formidible! Immigration is another threat as well and I agree with you that we have not done enough to stop it. But where does your stance discriminate between the two? Which one is more valid? Which threat is more dangerous?
Now I am not saying a course of preemptive action (i.e. the Bush Doctrine?) is what is required but how does one acheive the desired state of non-intervention to begin with? It cannot operate with in the cuurent confines of an operational logical solution. You cannot have one or the other.
It is a paradox at best ,Toddard.
Lets say for example that regime A in podunkistan is an avowed and sworn enemy to the US. Then lets say that this regime stands ready to acquire a weapon of horrible proportions. At WHAT point does non-intervention stop becoming a valid theory? Before OR after the enemy force acquires its hypothetical weapon?
As you already know, I have fought in Iraq on 3 different occasions. I saw personally what the Iraqis were capable of. I was at their testing facilities and had IED's detonated on me that carried sarin gas. Dont tell me that that the Iraqi threat wasn't real. I would agree with you that it might have been overstated.
I have also been to Afghanistan. I have seen everything there both good and bad.
How should we have stopped Al-Qaeda from operating in Afghanistan when the Taliban simply would'nt co-operate with us? What should we have done about OBL? What about the opium trade that despite the Talibans best efforts flourished? Dont these qualify as legitimate threats?
Look I am not telling you that a position of non-interventionism is altogether wrong and we should start lobbing JDAMS at every single entity that defies American wishes.
What I am saying is that while I agree with you that Nation-Building is a convoluted theory at best. So is non-interventionism.
It simply doesnt work.
S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 6:02PM
"The problem here is who decides to make the call that America is in imminent danger?"
Congress, of course. That is, unless the threat is deemed so imminent that there isn't time for a formal declaration, in which case the President may decide to act. This should be followed by a formal declaration, imo.
"Non intervention is always trumped by the simple fact of a diverse and wide-ranging spectrum of OPFOR who would readily do America harm."
That is a quaint assertion. Back it up.
"The terrorist threat ( and you make a grave mistake in underestimating it) is very real and quite formidible! Immigration is another threat as well and I agree with you that we have not done enough to stop it. But where does your stance discriminate between the two?"
I don't understand the question.
"Which one is more valid? Which threat is more dangerous?"
They are both valid. The immigration threat is less immediate, though it will in the end do far more damage I believe. It can and probably will change the very nature of our country and people. The most terrorists can do is kill some of us.
"Now I am not saying a course of preemptive action (i.e. the Bush Doctrine?)"
The Bush Doctrine, as we understand and are referring to it now, was not one of preemptive war - it was one of *preventive* war. War waged to eliminate a hypothetical, future threat. Preemptive war is fought to preempt an impending attack.
"is what is required but how does one acheive the desired state of non-intervention to begin with?"
We close our far-flung bases around the world and bring home our military. If we are attacked, or if we determine an attack is imminent, we deploy our military.
"It cannot operate with in the cuurent confines of an operational logical solution. You cannot have one or the other."
No idea what you're talking about.
"It is a paradox at best ,Toddard."
I think you're making this more complicated than it is.
"Lets say for example that regime A in podunkistan is an avowed and sworn enemy to the US. Then lets say that this regime stands ready to acquire a weapon of horrible proportions. At WHAT point does non-intervention stop becoming a valid theory?"
Never. It remains in place, even after we intervene to prevent an attack.
"Before OR after the enemy force acquires its hypothetical weapon?"
That depends entirely on the circumstances, esp whether the "enemy" in question is the sort of enemy which would commit its entire nation and people to extinction. This, obviously, does not describe Iran.
"As you already know, I have fought in Iraq on 3 different occasions. I saw personally what the Iraqis were capable of."
What would YOU be capable of, I wonder, if a muslim army invaded America? As a better man than me asked: how would you react - how would Americans react - "if some foreign army from a Muslim nation invaded and bombed the U.S., occupied the country for the next several years with 60,000 soldiers, killed tens of thousands of citizens here, set up secret prisons where they disappeared Americans for years without charges or even contact with the outside world, imposed sanctions that blockaded food and medicine and killed countless children, invaded and ransacked our homes at will, abducted Americans and shipped them halfway around the world to island-prisons, instituted a worldwide torture regime, armed their allies for attacks on other Western nations, and threatened still other invasions.
Do you think Americans might be seething with rage about that, wanting to kill as many of the people from that country as possible? Wouldn't it be rather obvious that the more that was done to Americans, the more filled with hatred and a desire for violence they would be? Just consider the rage and fury and burning desire for vengeance that was unleashed by a one-day attack on U.S. soil, eight years ago, by a stateless band of extremists, that killed 3,000 people."
"Dont tell me that that the Iraqi threat wasn't real. I would agree with you that it might have been overstated."
It wasn't real.
I will address the rest of your post later tonight.
S.L. Toddard| 11.6.09 @ 7:38AM
"How should we have stopped Al-Qaeda from operating in Afghanistan when the Taliban simply would'nt co-operate with us?"
Why is it more important to stop them from operating in Afghanistan than it is to prevent them from entering the US? They cannot attack us in Afghanistan if we are not in Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in the Phillipines, Malaysia, Qatar, Afghanistan, the Czech Republic, Germany etc. What is the point of making Afghanistan terrorist-proof - which, incidentally, is an impossibility - when there is still the rest of the globe for them to operate in?
"What should we have done about OBL?"
We should have killed him.
"What about the opium trade that despite the Talibans best efforts flourished? Dont these qualify as legitimate threats?"
Of course not. The opium trade? The problem isn't that opium is grown in Afghanistan, it's America's depraved hunger for narcotics. Again, it is an issue of border control.
"It simply doesnt work."
I'm afraid history is not on your side. It works perfectly well for various neutral nations. It worked absolutely perfectly for America, right up until the end of WWII (which was, incidentally, the last "good war" because it was the last war fought according to non-interventionist principles).
By the way, non-interventionists are not ideologues. It is not an invariable article of faith. But it should be the norm - the general rule by which America operates: we only attack nations that have attacked us, or are planning to attack us. Do you not understand that it was precisely our interventionist policies - specifically our meddling in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, our one-sided support of Israel, and our soldiers in the Muslim Holy Land - that led the focus of various Islamic radicals to turn to the United States?
S.L. Toddard| 11.6.09 @ 7:41AM
To clarify: I did not oppose the war against Afghanistan after 9/11, and consider that war justified (though I think it should have ended years ago, and that there should have been a Congressional Declaration of War). I do not consider our continued occupation justified, however.
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 4:39PM
On this thread you have argued President Jefferson's use of military force was justified against the Barbary Pirates.
Yet there was no "Congressional Declaration of War" against Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, or the Ottoman Empire.
And above, you say the Afghanistan war was "justified", but there should have been a declaration of war.
If a Congressional declaration of war is required, how can the use of force be justified without it?
Oldefarte| 11.5.09 @ 12:51PM
This may be oversimplification, but I believe that any candidate can secure taxpayer-voters' favor by simply PROMISING TO REPRESENT those constituents; and then doing so. Most candidates go to DC and become engulfed in the political trappings of Washington life [and also come under the dominating influence of their national party leaders]. These politicians forget over time who elected them and who they owe their allegiance to. Hopefully, Virginia, NJ and 2010 will become a reminder to both imcumbents and challengers alike!!!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 1:21PM
I just finally had a novel idea. I shall copy/paste the following after each Toddard post and every other "eskimo" post.
(You do know the "eskimo strategy" don't you? they kept retreating until they finally found a place to live where no one else wanted to live.)
Ken (Old Texican)|
Toddard wants to retreat to "Fortress America", (with Superman at the north pole), and let the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.
(uh, until they start landing on our beaches.)
Randy Linderman| 11.5.09 @ 2:04PM
Are all readers of the Spectator hypocritical idiots? Sure seems so....
David Williams| 11.5.09 @ 4:38PM
No, just S.L.
KarlinPhoenix| 11.5.09 @ 2:23PM
Uh, Randy Linderman, don't you read the Spectator, too?
Your comment makes no good sense.
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 3:51PM
The American Spectator : Celebrating Limits | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 3:51PM
The American Spectator : Celebrating Limits | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Epimenides the Cretan| 11.5.09 @ 4:47PM
Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, and lazy gluttons.
Cervantes| 11.5.09 @ 4:58PM
So!
Does this mean you are an honest, gentle, hyperactive anorexic?
LOL
Ken (OLD Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 6:52PM
Sen'or Cervantes,
Si!
y (literal translation)...and... it is pleasing to me to thrust my lance into beautiful sinful windmills, many many times, listening to "OLEY" from the witnesses of my feats.
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 11:19PM
5′ x 9′ American Flag Case w/ Plaque Mount | eCheapPrice.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 11.7.09 @ 5:43PM
The problem for some who post here is that incoherence seems to have a quality all its own. Let's all name names, shall we?
Lieuer Euy| 1.17.10 @ 7:37AM
I have surfed the net more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's worth enough for me. Thanks.
Computer Blog Technology | Identify What Is My IP Address Region
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:21PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
hocky| 4.8.10 @ 1:09AM
Back in the day, I had three choices for playing electronic games: our brand-spankin’ new Atari 2600, my hand-held Mattel Football game, or the arcade at the mall. The kids these days just don’t know how good they have it: XBox, Playstation, Wii, PSP, DS, PC, online, download, kid-focused MMORPGs. The possibilities are nearly limitless. So when my daughter came home saying she really, really, really wanted to play an online game called Poptropica , I had to check it out for myself.
Poptropica is a free Flash-based game designed for kids ages 6 to 15. Created by the Family Education Network, Poptropica is a world that consists of many islands, each with their own set of problems and mysteries to solve. For example, on the Super Power island, you have to help recapture six criminals that have acquired super powers from a falling meteorite. As you travel across each island you must complete a number of tasks and challenges, each building upon the other.
While you are free to roam around the 2-D environment, some parts of each island are locked until you can accomplish certain goals. Thus, you can expect to make multiple trips into the game to “complete an island” and earn the coveted gold medallion. Fortunately, the game comes with a save feature. You will need to create a username and password to store your game. I recommend you write your info down on paper as well as there is not a password recovery feature.
The challenges on each island are very much age appropriate. Some are very simple and in the vein of classic adventure games since time immemorial, “I’ll tell you a secret, if you bring me the magic pig”. As you complete a task, you acquire achievements in the form of playing cards. Some cards can be enabled, such as the Jet Pack card, which lets you fly like a certain famous Mandalorian. For younger kids, be prepared to offer a little assistance as other tasks are a bit more complex, such as the secret decoder ring on Spy Island. And if your kid is stumped and you have run out of ideas yourself, you can always find walk-throughs on the internet.
As with many free online games, there are some advertisements in the game. The majority of them are embedded within appropriate locations. For example, I saw an ad for a new kid’s movie near a movie theater in the game. Some ads only appear for certain age groups, so don’t be surprised if your experience is different from someone else’s. It is important to note that the ads in no way affect how you obtain a gold medallion on an island.
There are currently eight islands in Poptropica : Early Poptropica, Shark Tooth Island, Time Tangled Island, Carrot Island, Super Power Island, Spy Island, Nabooti Island, Big Nate Island. The login page lists a 9th island set to arrive in 2009, Astro-Knights. There are bunch of previews and screenshots for the new island on the Poptropica blog.
All-in-all, this is a great site where geeklets can be introduced to online gaming. There are limited chat opportunities (no free chat at all). The games and challenges are simple yet extensive enough to keep them engaged and striving to help all of the citizens of Poptropica be rid of their island wo
jacky | 1.20.11 @ 2:23AM
The problem for some who post here is that incoherence seems to have a quality all its own. Let's all name names, shall we?