In response to Ryan's
No Debate If We All March in Conservative Lockstep
A good man knows when to put his principles aside to achieve the ends that his principles are meant to achieve in the first place. What you are really saying is that core conservative principles are always good. Clearly, those conservative politicians who part with their principles do not agree with you--unless, of course, it is politically expedient to do so.
There is a distinct difference between being pragmatic or compromising and abandoning one’s CORE principles. It is true in politics as it is true in relationships and life in general that we must often compromise or be accommodating by moving in a direction that we would not normally proceed on our own volition in order to be a productive part of society; however, when one claims to be a stalwart conservative, or liberal, or Christian, or atheist etc. there are certain basic core beliefs that one must steadfastly adhere to or one ceases to be that very thing one claims to be at his very essence. I would submit to you that one’s core principles should not be jettisoned simply as a means to an end for political expediency or to simply get along with the in-crowd. By doing so, we ultimately end up populating the world with unprincipled buffoons who’s only goal is what is best according to whatever crowd one is hanging with at any given moment in time.
Such was the case with the self-professed “conservative” Senator Bennett. When Bennett strayed from his avowed conservatism and continuously voted for decidedly left-of-center legislation, those voters who thought that they had a conservative senator championing their causes finally had had enough. In former-Senator Bennett’s case, he was met with a Republican primary challenge by Mike Lee to whom he lost. It is not supposition on my part that Bennett was replaced, and Senator Hatch is in dire jeopardy of following suit, because of his liberal actions when he told his constituents that he was a solid core conservative principled man. Indeed, Bennett’s straying from core principles is the very reason given by the challenger in that primary election and confirmed by the voters accordingly in his defeat.
Regarding my previous statement, “The cost of regulation has been far more detrimental to growth and the economy then would have been a totally unregulated business environment," you responded, “It is impossible to prove this. Moreover, while cost-benefit analysis should be a politician's bread and butter, there is more to consider than growth and the economy. Regulations are often intended to, you know, protect people. When we can settle upon the monetary value of a person's life, health, and happiness, perhaps our analyses will be more effective.”
I would concur that it would probably be nearly impossible to quantitatively prove my initial assertion based on the fact that there are myriads of variables involved and statistics could probably be manipulated to end up with the result one wanted to prove based on their assertion; however, intuitively and from just a common sense standpoint it is easy to determine the incredible amount of money and time that are spent due to regulation. I further agree that some of those regulations to protect people, their health, and their primary well-being etc. are absolutely necessary.
It is when we start passing draconian regulations intended to satisfy some small special interest group or make laws that are economically devastating which provide no net gain to the well-being of people that is at the kernel of the issue, in my mind. For example, when the EPA considers deeming C02 a “pollutant” based on specious special-interest “science”, one has to wonder what the ultimate cost to the economy and ultimate well-being of all Americans will be in trying to curb this naturally occurring gas that is VITAL for plant life on this earth. The cost of such foolish regulations end up being drastic, and not just monetarily.
We need to adamantly avoid all unnecessary and unconstitutional laws and regulations, or amend the Constitution accordingly to accommodate such laws. Ultimately, if one were to read the Federalist Papers and a vast preponderance of the writings of our Founders, one would recognize in their brilliance that we need to govern strictly as the United States Constitution mandates. Did you know that James Madison originally argued against including a Bill of Rights in that Constitution as he thought it was unnecessary? He said that the federal government was not authorized to do anything more or less than what was specifically enumerated within that document, hence our liberties should never be in jeopardy accordingly.
Despite Madison’s brilliance, it is a good thing that the opposing Founders won the day and had the Bill of Rights amended to it. While Madison was technically right, others saw the need to specifically list those rights of all Americans that shall not be infringed upon (Obama’s attack on our first amendment liberties of freedom of exercise of religion notwithstanding). It is a good thing the Bill of Rights was included as one can clearly see that the monstrosity of the federal government today has grown far outside of those powers specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution, and indeed have usurped many of our God-given and Constitutionally mandated freedoms.
It is my contention that standing by those core principles, as conservative constitutionalists, we will restore our country to economic power and universal liberty for all Americans. Abandoning principles when one finds them to be inconvenient and ignoring the supreme law of the land in our Constitution will only ensure the further erosion and ultimate collapse of this government supposedly of We The People.
In addition to his valued contributions here, T. Paine preserves and protects Constitutional core principals on his own site.
Please visit Saving Common Sense.
Trackback address for this post
He did not resist including them because it was “unnecessary.” There was a political war in progress and he was acting in the interest of his side. If Madison were here today, he would be more of a conservative, not a liberal. The Bill of Rights section is a liberal section that can often be used to promote liberal views of liberty. I think Madison knew this.
If it was merely a question of redundancy, Madison would not have been so grammatically (or stylistically) adamant as you imagine.
Further, if one stays away from revisionist history sources, you will find my characterization of Madison and his intentions with regards to the necessity of the Bill of Rights to be quite accurate.
"Don't argue with me. I don't have time to debate right now. Very tight deadline." :)
"I would submit to you that one’s core principles should not be jettisoned simply as a means to an end for political expediency or to simply get along with the in-crowd."
In an ideal world, I would completely agree. In this world of people who do abandon their principles for political expediency, I take a more nuanced position.
Suppose that you are one of two candidates in an election. You know that one of your beliefs is highly unpopular, but also that your opponent's positions will cause great harm to your community. You have two options: reveal your position and lose the election, which allows you to be proud that you stuck to your principles, but leads to harm to your community; or conceal your position and win the election, which allows you to fight for the rest of your principles that are both beneficial and popular.
Both may be harmful in some way, but the latter is clearly preferable. Would it be better if you could be honest AND win the election? Of course. But that is not the scenario.
In any case, I didn't mean that principles should be sacrificed for convenience. They should be sacrificed when it is good to do so, which is when they interfere with their own purpose.
"When Bennett strayed from his avowed conservatism and continuously voted for decidedly left-of-center legislation, those voters who thought that they had a conservative senator championing their causes finally had had enough."
The trouble is that we don't vote on specific issues. It may be the case that Bennett lost because his opponent was much more conservative, but it might also be the case that people cared about a particular issue or set of issues more than anything else, that people simply liked his opponent's personality more, that his opponent's political ads and spending were more effective, that he said something that offended people, that Tea Party rhetoric was particularly effective in the area, etc. Of course, you know more about these politicians and their politics than I do, but the variables remain. This means that some--perhaps even many--of those who voted for Bennett might not approve of some of his positions. Indeed, if everyone voted on every issue, we would undoubtedly find that the public disagrees with the positions of some of those whom it elects. That is why I hate all talk of political mandates that are based solely on who was elected--and it is one of the problems of our political system.
"It is when we start passing draconian regulations intended to satisfy some small special interest group or make laws that are economically devastating which provide no net gain to the well-being of people that is at the kernel of the issue, in my mind."
We agree, but the agreement is superficial if we disagree over what constitutes "draconian" and "economically devastating" and "gain to the well-being of people."
"... trying to curb this naturally occurring gas that is VITAL for plant life on this earth."
Water is vital for humans, but in sufficiently large quantities, it is toxic. The point? Excesses of a good or even necessary thing are still excesses.
CO2 is important for plant life, but so are other conditions. The point? If CO2 sufficiently interferes with those other conditions, the plant life will not be "happy" that it has more CO2.
Come, now; climate change skeptics can do better than this.
I realize that you find Republican philosophy "quite accurate." Madison made a philosophical statement about why he did not want the Bill of Rights. I would not characterize it as "accurate" or "inaccurate" as it is not falsifiable. I would characterize it as justification, but only if I continued avoiding revisionist history.
Leave a comment
|« Economic Bench||No Debate If We All March in Conservative Lockstep |