I'm attempting to discontinue my use of the following labels . . .
In their place I plan to consistently use the terms Left-Statist and Right-Statist. You may want to consider doing the same thing. Here's why...
I believe the terms liberal and conservative are mostly meaningless.
In the past we could (somewhat) reliably depend upon...
* Liberals/progressives to protect civil liberties.
* Conservatives to protect economic liberties.
This is no longer true. Here are two crucial examples of the problem...
* The supposedly liberal/progressive Barack Obama, when he was still a Senator, voted to legalize warrant-less wiretapping. No true liberal would ever have done this.
* The supposedly conservative George W. Bush created the prescription drug benefit, the largest new entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson created Medicaid and Medicare. No true conservative would ever have done this. ...
Comment: I somewhat agree with the author; his point typifies the political fight that has been building for quite a while and will become even more pronounced as we move through the next few years, and that is the fight between the "statist" and "non-statist" or should I say the "limited statist." This is where I disagree with the author because I believe the majority of Americans trust there is a place for government; but it should have limits. Those limits were outlined in the US Constitution over 200 years ago. So I would say I fall in the "limited statist" camp.
The unfortunate problem we have today is that our lexicon has been so maligned by the media, academics, politicians, political groups to name a few, we truly have lost the ability to accurately describe a given philosophy, person, or position because of the Newspeak that has been supplanted within in our society. But this is where I do agree with the author who states accurately that the labels are meaningless at this time.
However, statist and non-statist do not accurately reflect the general belief of most Americans. We can agree the warrentless wire taps are unconstitutional and should be struck down, nevertheless, some states may decide to have a prescription drug plan and that is acceptable under the US Constitution because of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
It’s this point that should cause all Americans to consider the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Repealing the 17th doesn’t send us back to the 19th Century, rather what it does is restores the framework of the federalist system and the balance of power between the state and national governments. There is no place in the Constitution for Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription Health Care, Obama Health Care, HUD, Head Start to name a few of the socialized programs created and maintained by the National Government. All of these programs can be conceivably created at the state level. And if a state decides abortion or homosexual marriage is illegal then it is for the state to decide, not the National Government, Federal Government or the Supreme Court.
But the National Government does have the ability to police crimes that involve interstate and international boundaries, and issues of national security, however within the limits of the Constitution. But it is for the states and people to decide if and when we go to war through the elected representatives in Congress, not the President and a few oligarchs in the Senate.
So while I agree with much of what the author stated, when one considers the impetus behind the repeal of the 17th Amendment, one can’t easily segment groups between statists and non-statists. It comes down to those believing in the full cohesive power of a national government and those that believe in limited power of federal government with the state exercising the prerogative of the state community.