The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Current Crisis
Print Email
Text Size

The Current Crisis

Catnip From the Egotists

By on 1.5.12 @ 6:09AM

Progressives can’t keep from going after the Super PACs that their reforms made possible.

WASHINGTON — An underlying theme of our times that has gone unperceived by the high and mighty in media, government, and other locales where the politically alive come to roost is the thumping failure of an increasing number of counter-productive old Progressive reforms. Once they were beheld as prodigies from the minds of superior citizens, such stars of yesteryear as Robert M. La Follette and Woodrow Wilson. Now they are revealed as hollow shams or at best curiosities. Surely soon they will be seen for what they are, catnip from the egotists.

In a political year Progressive reforms from a bygone era are all around us, assumed, by the high and mighty, as the way things should be. Is there too much money in politics? But of course! Are the pols being bought off by the vested interests? For a certitude, the giant corporations, the fat cats, the vested interests are flooding the Halls of Congress and lesser political venues with cash (never in this list is included the unions, particularly the public-sector unions). What shall be done about this vast influx of money into politics? Well, though Americans spend more on dog food than on elections, our troubled reformers have a solution. Cut donations to politicians from large donors. Alas, every time they do so the clever pols — often, clever reform pols — find new ways to fund their campaigns.

Most recently this process began with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which unconstitutionally limited corporate and union freedom of political speech. So ruled the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision. The eventual result was ever more accountants hired by campaigns and the advent of today’s Super PACs, which is to say the political action committees of the present moment that raise and spend large amounts on politics but claim not to be in cahoots with any of the politicians that they favor. Consequently, there is even less accountability by Super PACs.

The campaign finance reformers will now go after the Super PACs. Some fanciful reform of them will be dreamt up. The pols will again thwart the reform and the process will continue. But maybe enough is enough. In truth, the only reform necessary is transparency. If the electorate knows the origins of donations and the direction in which they go they will know enough about the candidates to cast a sensible vote.

Which brings us to the absurdity of the caucuses and the primaries. Bring back the smoke-filled room! Or at least a room full of Democrats and Republicans that are truly representative of their parties.

Progressives once saw the primary system as the latest advance in the democratic process. Thrust the party bosses aside and let the citizenry vote for the presidential candidates. The consequence is that the casual voter overwhelms the committed party member — often the one-issue voter overwhelms the committed party voter with several issues and the good of the party in mind. Large amounts of money go to local media to coax out the casual voter once or twice in an electoral cycle. The result is that a transient mob — and sometimes a very small transient mob — gives us our presidential candidates for the general election: Barack Obama for the Democrats, probably Mitt Romney for the Republicans. In neither case is the candidate a typical Democrat or Republican.

Under the present system of caucus and primary voting, the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire are given disproportionate voice in who will be chosen for the presidential race. Frankly, I like the galoots from Iowa and New Hampshire. From all I can tell they look and think pretty much like me, especially on politics. Yet there is something wrong here. I think way back before the Progressives were ever heard of, state conventions made a lot more sense than the present system. As I see it, most Americans are coming to agree.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (34) |

L. Ross| 1.5.12 @ 7:25AM

Hear, Hear.

I have had about enough of Iowa and their corn lobby driving presidential politics for the past 40 years. Frankly, I would take anything which could coax better candidates out than our current lackluster crop.

For Clint:

Paul ain't gunna make it.

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 8:08AM

For Ross:

Your Breath Ain't Gonna Make It.

jothepro| 1.5.12 @ 8:42AM

For Clint:
Your smell ain't gunna make it..

Citizen Jerry| 1.5.12 @ 10:14AM

I love a good spitting contest!

Clint| 1.5.12 @ 7:20PM

For Jotheho.

Your Stink Made It To American Spectator.

Brian Mc| 1.5.12 @ 10:20AM

You blame Iowans for the current 'crop' of candidates and this would change if...what?
Interesting
By the way, this Iowan believes in the free enterprise system and never rode a tractor to school after milking the cows.

Alan Brooks| 1.5.12 @ 8:51PM

It is NEWT Buck Rogers-Flash Gordon GINGRICH who dislikes super PACs the most.

Pecos Pete| 1.5.12 @ 7:26AM

Mr. Tyrrell: I agree with you, state party conventions are preferable to the current primary/caucus method. And, to make it more interesting, hold the state conventions on the same day.

Renaissance Nerd | 1.5.12 @ 8:39AM

I reckon all the 'progressive' reforms were antithetical to a federal republic, and that was the idea. They wanted one size fits all, which might be fine on a small scale--communism can even work on a small scale, see 'The Village' for a perfect example. The whole reason for a federal republic is size; even when the population was 3 million the founders figured it was too many people for one size fits all--and now we're 100 times larger. Instead of cramming everybody into mythical pigeon holes every power needs to devolve back to the states, including removing laws about primaries etc. Let the state parties decide for themselves.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.5.12 @ 8:39AM

I'm only writitng one thing, today. Cause, it's the most important thing, that noboy's talking about.

How long have I been writing about DICTATORSHIP 101? How long have I been saying that this guy is a Dictator, and he's getting away with it, because we have a sycophantic Press, only too happy to Inform us of his Greatness, and Cover Up the rest?

We heard, in 2008, when his ASSOCIATIONS with Communists, and Marxists, and Socialists, and Maoists, and Anarchists were brought up, that WE WERE GUILTY of perpetrating "Guilt by Association". We were lectured that 'Birds of a Feather', don't necessarily 'Flock Together'. And we were derided as RACISTS, when we used the words of CHRIST: "Men shall know you bye the company you keep".

Yesterday, the Man with his Life's Documentation SEALED in a Vault, on an Island State, in the Middle of the Ocean, Crossed the Rubicon. He picked up a Hammer, walked over to the Library of Congress, smashed the case that holds the Constitution, and WIPED HIS *SS with it.

He has decided, by himself, that "I" am not gonna stand by, while a Minority (Irony, anyone?) in the Senate is doing things that will harm this Economy (Projection) while I'm trying to save the Middle Class." (Lie)

"I'm" not gonna stand here. "I'm" not gonna allow it.

I thought he was a Constitutional Professor? I thought that he taught the Constitution? Of course, that was all just one more LIE, from the Media. One more LIE from people like Historian: Michael Beschloss, who told Don Imus that Obama is probably the Smartest person to ever be President, and that his I.Q. "is off the Charts". When asked, by Imus, if he knew what his I.Q. was? Beschloss replied: "I have NO IDEA, but I'm sure that it's really high".

He HIDES his Records, in a Vault, like the Vatican would hide something that would PROVE that there's no GOD. Obamas' Acolytes preach the MYTH about the Man, and it's up to the rest of us, to Prove otherwise.

He was in the U.S. Senate when Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer, and all of the rest of the SCUM, did the exact same thing, while George Bush was President, as the Republicans are doing, now.

Where's the Media? Where's ABC, CBS, NBC, and NPR? They all KNOW this to be true. He's in Direct Confrontation with the Constitution, AGAIN. Everybody knows it, and yet, so far, nobody's doing anything.

"All that Evil needs, to succeed, is for Good Men to do Nothing."

He doesn't talk with his Cabinet. He doesn't talk with Congressional Leaders. And, why should he? Did King George do these things? Did Napoleon? Did Hitler? Did Kim Jung Il?

If he isn't Stopped now? We're looking at Civil War. Anyone, who LOVES THIS COUNTRY, and would wish this guy harm? Might just find themselves, out of options. There's 360 Million people here. And it only takes 1.

To our Friends at the Secret Service: You know your OATH. It's to the Constitution. It's not to HIM. It's to the Constitution. When you take that Oath, you swear to PROTECT the Constitution from all enemies, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.

How do you Define: Domestic Enemy? What are the Parameters? Can a President, ever be that Domestic Enemy? This President is tearing down the Fabric of this Republic. He has divided us in to 2 Camps. We look more and more like present day IRAQ, than we do, The United States of America. We are running out of time.

I have Faith that GOD will not permit this THING to go on long enough, to Destroy this Country. And I believe that, somewhere out there, someone will do what's right, and put an end to the ATTROCITIES, that are being perpetrated against the American people, on an almost Daily Basis.

This needs to be Fixed, through the Proper Channels of Government - The House and the Senate - and through the Media. Otherwise, in a Country of 360 Million people, someone out there might end up feeling FORCED, to fix it the Wrong Way.

I'm just saying.

DRed| 1.5.12 @ 1:22PM

What does the constitution say about recess appointments?

VonMisesJr| 1.5.12 @ 2:00PM

Senate is not in recess.

Purp| 1.5.12 @ 3:42PM

Are they available to vote? Are they even in town? They ARE in recess, they're just playing shenanigans for political reasons.
Obama outsmarted them - again and they are shamed he smacked them down again. Idiots.

VonMisesJr| 1.5.12 @ 3:52PM

Comrade, your handlers will be exceedingly proud of you.
If you could master the logical and material fallacies and make convincing arguments, you might get into community organizing school.
You have ad hominem down pat. Work on better non sequitur and improved equivocation, and my boy you will be going places.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.5.12 @ 3:44PM

Hey, dipsh*t, Harry Reid did the same thing when George W. Bush was President!

The Constitution says that BOTH HOUSES of Congress, must AGREE that the Senate is in Recess, for the senate to be in recess.

But, it doesn't matter to you.

You're a Dipsh*t.

DRed| 1.5.12 @ 6:32PM

So if Harry Reid does something, it makes it right? I'll remember that, Timmy. How is congress in session if nobody is there and it's not doing anything? The Senate is attempting to unilaterally prohibit legitimate functions of the executive branch. If senators don't like the NLRB, for example, they should introduce legislation eliminating it rather than attempting to eliminate it by refuse to approve board members. That's the way our government is supposed to function under the constitution.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.5.12 @ 6:39PM

Yeah, according to you. You never made a peep when Harry Reid was doing this. you were ALL FOR IT.

It takes Both houses to AGREE that the Senate is in Recess, to make it so.

But, then, that's the Constitution. And, nobody believes that you give a Rat's Ass, about that.

The problem with you, is that FACTS don't mean anything to you. You've got your head, firmly up the Muslim's Ass, and nothing can make you pull it out.

For me? I will no longer treat you as an adult. You will, forever be, DUMB*SS, from here on out.

Goodbye, Dumb*ss.

DRed| 1.5.12 @ 7:33PM

First, Timothy, the President has the power to adjourn the Congress if the houses disagree on when to adjourn. It's in the constitution and everything. It is, in fact, a FACT, as you would put it. And to further examine the facts, I should point out that what the constitution says is that one house can not go on recess for longer than 3 days without the permission of the other. Saying that both houses have to agree for the senate to be in recess is not FACTually accurate.

If the Senate has but a single member present and doesn't even try to conduct business, how can they be in session? If the Senate refuses to even consider an officer of the executive branch for approval, and then refuses to go into recess solely for the purpose of foiling the executive's recess power, they are acting outside of the constitution. It's somewhat analogous to a legislative veto. Do you think one house of congress (and in this case, a minority of one house) has the right to unilaterally decide that the executive can no longer function? And if you do, can you point where in the constitution that power is derived from? Come now, Timmy. You are an adult. This should be child's play for you.

Farewell my friend,

DRed

leveut| 1.5.12 @ 10:32PM

1. While it is true that in case of disagreement between House and Senate with respect to time of adjournment a President may adjourn them to a time he thinks proper, in this case there is no disagreement. The Senate does not want to adjourn, and the House has no problem with that.

2. The Constitution does say that neither House during a session of congrees shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days. It is silliness to claim "both houses have to agree for the senate to be in recess is not FACTually accurate." If the Senate does not wish to adjourn for more than three days, the House cannot make it adjourn. If the Senate wishes to adjourn for more than three days, it may not do so without the consent of the House. For the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, both Houses must agree. That is a fact.

3. "If the Senate has but a single member present and doesn't even try to conduct business, how can they be in session? " Article 1 Section 5 "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings". And that includes whether it is in session if one person is present and it doesn't try to conduct business. A president has no say in what the Senate's rules are.

4. "If the Senate refuses to even consider an officer of the executive branch for approval, and then refuses to go into recess solely for the purpose of foiling the executive's recess power, they are acting outside of the constitution. " This is nonsense. Separation of powers plus the specific requirement of advice and consent to appointees. The Constitution does not require the Senate consider any presidential appointment within any particular period of time, or at all. And, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to set its own rules, including how and when it considers presidential appointees. One can reasonably argue that the Constitution suggests or strongly recommends that presidential appointees be acted upon, but it is not required. In fact, as a legal matter, a President could not go to court to get an injunction to force Senate action on a nominee. That is, however, what your position would allow, a court order to the Senate to require it consider and vote on a presidential nominee and within a specific time period. Good luck on that.

5. "Do you think one house of congress (and in this case, a minority of one house) has the right to unilaterally decide that the executive can no longer function? " That is another irrelevant and superficial point. The unwillingness of the Senate to confirm a presidential nominee has nothing to do with whether the President can carry out his duties, nor is it a legislative veto or analogous to one. It is, however, part of the separation of powers built into the Constitution, the powers given to one branch so that the other(s) shall not have all power.

6, "Come now, Timmy. You are an adult. This should be child's play for you." Whatever Timmy is, you, sir, are a twit.

DRed| 1.6.12 @ 10:59AM

1. I'm pretty sure the Senate would adjourn if the house would let them. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate.

2. Sure. I'm just messing with Timmy.

3. Yes and no. The Senate can determine it's own rules, it's true. Here, though, the rule seems to exist only to violate the constitution. The President has the power to make recess appointments when the Senate is not able to provide him with advice and consent. The Senate is not able to provide him with advice and consent right now.

4. You're partially right. But that's because the power to make recess appointments provides the President with a way to staff the executive branch if the Senate doesn't or can't act.

5. The President has a duty to execute the laws of the United States. He obviously can't do that by himself. The judicial branch can't function without judges. The CPFB needs a director. The NLRB needs more than 2 members to legally function. A minority of the Senate is acting to block these executive agencies from functioning because it doesn't like the laws that created them. That's not their constitutional role. If the Senate doesn't like some particular presidential nominee that's not a problem-but here, a minority of the senate is refuse to consider ANY nominees, and not because it's troubled by the qualifications of the nominees, but because it doesn't like the law. If the Congress doesn't like a law it can write another law. That's how it's supposed to work.

VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 8:55AM

Timothy,
Rush discussed this regime as "Lawless" yesterday, and Mark Levin, Constitutional Scholar (unlike Obama who was a lecturer or some kind of speaker on "Rules for Radicals") said this yesterday about our "Constitutional Crises": http://cnsnews.com/blog/patric.....nal-crisis
VMJr.

Terrible Ted| 1.6.12 @ 8:46AM

Regarding Obama's constitutional scholarship, I read a Newsweek article at my doctor's office yesterday on his potential after leaving office. Supreme Court justice was given as a high likelihood, saying that his great prose and time as a con law professor would produce the the greatest opinions ever. I cannot seem to find anything he has written on the constitution. There is the video where he said the constitution, "with negative rights," doesn't go far enough to provide "re-distributive" rights. Anyone?

Moe Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 8:43PM

Right, and the Hosehead in Chief also whined about the Constitution not saying what the Federal government CAN do.

VonMisesJr| 1.5.12 @ 8:50AM

The problem is the tax code. It takes 72,536 pages to document the 2011 tax code. (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/07/2011-number-of-pages-in-us-tax-code.html)

If we simply took the advice of Steve Forbes and instituted a new flat tax with minimum exemptions, the lobbyist and other rent-seekers would be thwarted. But our politicians have designed a club with open and unattended bars in every room for a nation of alcholics. The taxpayers keep buying gin and vodka, and the politicians and crony capitalist keep drinking for free and refilling the bottles with water.

nathan| 1.5.12 @ 2:54PM

McCain/Feingold was sponsored by who? And what party did he belong to? Senator McCain has been on a single minded assault on the Bill of Rights for years including supporting gun control and his latest, the amendment to the NDAA which more or less eliminates the Fifth Amendment. Recall again that when challenged on the floor of the senate by Rand Paul who unlike the senator from Arizona actually takes his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution seriously, McCain more or less called Rand a traitor for opposing the amendment. And please explain how a republican controlled house left it in the bill?

With friends like these we do not lack for enemies? By the way you all do recall that the hero of you all, the one who "saved the country" Mr. Bush could have vetoed McCain/Feingold but chose not do so. As in so many things he was a real defender of liberty wasn't he? Bush is going to go down as easily one of the 10 worst presidents in history, maybe making the top five.

Purp| 1.5.12 @ 3:44PM

Maybe? Great Depression II, largest attack on American Soil, the presidency that ended American liberty...

Nick| 1.5.12 @ 4:41PM

Nathan,

Neither McLame, nor George W. Bush, are running for president in 2012. Liberals always want to live in the past.

Now, go back to huffpo or koskids, like a good lefty.

JoeyB| 1.5.12 @ 5:00PM

Blubbering "But, but, but Bush did..." is the lefty response to any criticism of their side's policies.

cicero| 1.5.12 @ 4:53PM

Being old enough to remember the old system, and having been a delegate to our state convention when you had to run and be elected a precinct to go, I totally agree with you. At that time the purpose of the conventions was to adopt a platform, and then nominate the candidate to carry forth the platform in the general election. When was the last time anyone heard of a party platform. Now we have elections run on the basis of slogans, and candidates nominated or elected on the basis of sound bytes.
Bring back the smokey rooms.

JmsA| 1.5.12 @ 5:34PM

Don'f feed the trolls.

Niniane| 1.5.12 @ 7:58PM

It all comes down to money and the continual pounding by the MSM -- a four-day pre-game show, 48 hours of pundits as results come in and hours of touting themselves about how wonderful a job they did during the caucus. Obama could have invaded a few countries but it would not have been noticed.

POST American| 1.5.12 @ 10:15PM

---AND speaking of 'Progressives',
let's take in the 'Republican' EYE-cons
of the last century:

-Teddy Rossevelt let the deadly Rockefeller
'sin-dick--IT' off the hook, even
after the Pennsylvania and Ludlow Colorado
coal field massacres.

Bully Boy Teddy also had a hand in empowering
the militarists in Japan --and handing Korea
over to aggressive colonization and some
truly fierce EUGENICS by the same ---an
opening salvo to Manchuria --China ---and,
in superb 'Order out of Chaos' fashion
--------------PEARL HARBOR------------------

(SEE 'The Fugu Plan' by Rabbi Tokkier
for still more details)

-Hoover, with his relief missions to the
newly installed Bolshevik regime, helped
CON-solidate financial ties and bring
Wall Street aid, during the famine
---to the Bolsheviks.

Hoover himself, like Roosevelt, was a
deep admirer of central planning, a
planned economy ---a la the Soviets.
--AHHHH, but then we learn ALLLLL
the Soviet 5 year plans were drafted
up ---in the U.S. ---by the the Globalists!
And all that going on while reports of
the liquidation of tens of millions
were suppressed by the likes of the
New York Times.

-Wendell Wilkie wrote glowingly of the
New World Order in a WWII era book
---following on, first, Woodrow Wilson's
screed, and then, in the late 20's ---Adolf
Hitler's.

-'Rich-Hard Nick's ON', at the behest of
Globalist creep op supreme 'Aver-ILL
Hairy-man' and Acheson ----initiated the U.S.
taxpayer underwritten 'RED China miracle'
--and lock stock and barrel transfer of
the U.S. economy

(those who want MORE details should
look up DECLASSIFIED State Dept. MEMO
200 from 1975)

-Gingrich's presiding over the KEY moments
of Globalist economic TREASON during the
90's leave the man himself, an open, mercenary
adulterer and unrepentant Globalist, technocrat
and EUGENIST ----beneath mention.

-----------------HAD ENOUGH?

IF NOT, then, keep a votin' 'em in kiddies!

----------------Bisphenol A while you play

-----------------------just keep on goin'

----------------------------to Nuremberg 2012!

--------------------a la 1934 -----or 1945 (?)

-----------------ONE or the OTHER is coming.

guthriej| 1.6.12 @ 7:21PM

Buckley would've preferred to be governed by a few hundred folks from the Boston 'phone book rather than the Harvard faculty. What's the difference between the Harvard crowd and the smoke-filled room?

sweeterjan| 5.29.12 @ 2:05AM

Under the present system of caucus and primary voting, the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire are given disproportionate voice in who will be chosen for the presidential race. Frankly, I like the galoots from Iowa and New Hampshire. From all I can tell they look and think pretty much like me, especially on politics. Yet there i http://www.ceinturesfr.com/cei.....-c-17.html something wrong here. I think way back before the Progressives were ever heard of, state conventions made a lot more sense than the present system. As I see it, most Americans are coming to agre

More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

More Articles From The Current Crisis

A Crazy Culture

April 25, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

From Boston to Haymarket to Bill Ayers

April 18, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

The Iron Lady and the Blonde

April 11, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

The NRA’s Deterrent to Gun Violence

April 4, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Such Touching Concern

March 28, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/05/catnip-from-the-egotists

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|107 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|34 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|25 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.