The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

For the University of Mobile’s Center for Leadership, I lay out the stark choices in this election.

One side of the debate advocates a large, energetic, active, powerful national government. It believes central planners can use their “expertise” to direct many aspects of economic affairs, and that stern regulators are needed to protect Americans from numerous ills both natural and man-made….    The Constitution, according to this outlook, is antiquated, almost hopelessly so – except insofar as its “spirit” can be discerned and applied to meet changing circumstances. In that way, the Constitution is “alive” – ever evolving under the beneficent care of learned and appropriately progressive judges. It doesn’t protect rights that pre-exist government; instead, judges use the Constitution’s spirit to ascertain which rights should be “doled out” (in the words of one Supreme Court justice) by the government. In other words, the government, not a Creator, grants rights, insofar (and only insofar) as those rights are seen to be conducive to the betterment of society….

The other side of the debate believes that government, especially the national government, must be strictly limited to powers and duties assigned to it by the Constitution ratified by the people. Freedom is paramount, in the form of “ordered liberty” – the “order” being maintained through laws firm and clear, but not numerous. Individual citizens, not the government, are usually the best judges of their own best interests. And free enterprise and capitalism are seen as a bit messy but overwhelmingly productive and constructive. Capitalism might require a safety net, but not a harness…. In matters cultural, traditional values are seen as the bedrock of society, and faith must be allowed wide latitude for public expression. And the entirety of enlightened civilization rests on two foundations: the recognition that human life is a sacred gift from God; and the celebration of the traditional family unit, grounded in the age-old ideal of marriage between man and woman.

Again, you can read the whole thing here.

View all comments (6) |

JD| 11.1.12 @ 1:27PM

"Capitalism might require a safety net, but not a harness..."

What would a safety net that is not a harness look like?

My answer is "not involving government."

sylercider| 11.1.12 @ 3:02PM

JD, so you'd rather have no safety net at all? Or are you saying we should privatize the safety net?

Al Adab| 11.1.12 @ 4:06PM

In re the so called safety net, What moral claim do any of us presume to have to the earnings, property and wealth of others? Charity under compulsion is no charity at all.

Oldefarte| 11.1.12 @ 3:56PM

There's only one vision for some of us and it pertains partially to the following:

http://www.newsmax.com/FrankGa...../id/461469

Red Phillips | 11.2.12 @ 8:46AM

Yes, two visions do indeed clash in this election. Bankster War Party A and Bankster War Party B are clashing with various anti-bankster and anti-war third parties of both the right and left. :-) Hence, I will be voting Constitution Party, thank you very much.

Oldefarte| 11.2.12 @ 9:22AM

Then you will WASTING your vote and additionally possibly condemning this country to HELL.......thank you!!!!!!!!

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/11/01/two-visions-clash-in-this-elec

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein | 5.21.13

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord | 5.21.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT