Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Jacob Sullum :: Townhall.com Columnist
Platform at Sea
by Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The Republican platform unveiled last week notes in passing that "the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education." Yet the same document offers opinions on all manner of local educational issues, including the virtues of phonics, the evils of sex education, the wisdom of merit pay for teachers and the folly of social promotion.

That contradiction illustrates the hollowness of the Republican commitment to "constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions." The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it's convenient.

You might say that's old news. Yet while campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Department of Education. So did Bob Dole in 1996. After two terms of a Republican president who proudly charged in the opposite direction, the most John McCain can muster is a promise to "identify and eliminate ineffective programs" -- that is, to make unconstitutional activities more efficient.

Although the Department of Education is still with us, by threatening to eliminate it, Reagan and like-minded Republicans signaled that they understood some matters are beyond the purview of the federal government. It's hard to find evidence of that understanding in the current GOP platform.

In 1887, Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill allocating $10,000 to help drought-stricken farmers in Texas, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Nowadays the Republican Party takes for granted the propriety of both "a natural disaster insurance policy" and an "economic safety net for farmers."

Likewise, the GOP platform does not question the legitimacy of the federal government's enormous entitlement programs, saying only that they should be "reformed" and "modernized." Regarding Social Security, McCain does not go even as far as George W. Bush, who proposed letting Americans shift some of their payroll taxes to private accounts. By contrast, the current platform calls for "personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to" the existing system of intergenerational income redistribution.

Far from shrinking the federal government, the Republicans want to enlarge it, providing "aid to those hurt by the housing crisis," solving "the energy crisis" (undeterred by the Carteresque connotations of that phrase), "expanding access to higher education," seeking "a major expansion of support" for certain kinds of stem cell research, even "returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars." The platform does not explain how these initiatives qualify as "legitimate constitutional functions."

The Republicans are committed to "continuing the fight against illegal drugs," even though that fight, unlike alcohol prohibition, was never authorized by a constitutional amendment. They want to impose national bans on gay marriage, human cloning, assisted suicide and online gambling, even while declaring that "Congress must respect the limits imposed by the Tenth Amendment," which reserves to the states or the people "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Despite their eagerness to trample individual freedom in all these areas, Republicans claim, "the other party wants more government control over people's lives," but "Republicans do not."

The Republicans "lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states." Yet their position that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment implies that the Constitution not only allows but requires a national ban on abortion, which also would override state policy choices.

Defending "the free-speech right to devote one's resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports," the Republicans say they "oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals." Yet their presidential nominee is famous for pushing precisely such restrictions and conditions in the name of "campaign finance reform."

As an indicator of where McCain would take the country after eight years of big-government conservatism, the 2008 Republican platform is not just disappointing. It's incoherent.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
A stake through their hearts
This article is absolutely accurate. Republicans are only the flip side of the demo-rat coin. Get Congress out of the legislation/program creation. It worked with "drill here, drill now", so let's get started with a campaign that demands "no Congressional representative in office more than six years, ever, from NOW ON".

In a modern world...
When the Constitution was written, the authors of that document likely never dreamed that our society would debate the legitimacy of 'same sex marriage' or that Americans would demand of government free everything - health care, medicine, housing, food stampes - and more.

Furthermore, our early leaders understood the danger in party-politics. That partisans would do what was best for their party - not what is best for the country.

So, in some ways, parties seem to ignore the limitations placed on government by the Constitution, in other ways they are reacting to the demands of us - the American electorate - and to a changing society with declining moral values.

Without a limit on same sex marriage, will all States not be forced to 'honor' the 'contracts' of marriages performed in places like CA and MA? Would a person ever be elected who insisted on returning the Federal laws and programs to only those authorized in the Constitution? Would Americans really vote to abolish Social Security, the Department of Education, the National Parks and National Forests... and on and on?

So clearly somehow we must do the best we can in the real world... and learn to live with it.

platforms are obsolete
Reagan promised to eliminate that department but he was cursed with a Demoncrap congress and since this department was established by the Demoncraps under Carter it was impossible. He did in fact cut the actual budget for it and that my friends under a dem congress is a miracle.

http://www.aei.org/publications/PubID.20675/pub_detail.asp

As for the Republican platform it is a hodgepodge of statements meant to pacify individual groups under the Republican banner. In that fact, it is just like the Dem platform. The primary purpose of a platform in the old days was to let the voter know what the official party and candidate’s position on the issues was. In the old days before mass communication and a candidate trying to hide his real position, this was a fast way to get the message out to all parts of the country.

With the advent of TV, and TV broadcast debates, the party platform became obsolete, and in some cases such as this, actually harmful. The Republican platform was modified to satisfy McLame and a lot of liberal stuff was added, like the need to fight AGW. The need to abolish the dept of education was added way back in the Bob Dole days but was never removed, even though Bush actually added all of the unconstitutional eduecrat stuff.

The fact is that under McLame and a Demo congress there is NO CHANCE that any action will be taken to remove some of the unconstitutional activities of the feds. In fact, it is more likely that he will cross the aisle to add more.

The ONLY reason that conservative will vote for him is because the Vomit will not have to cross the aisle to rip up the constitution and deliver the U.S. to the U.N. to cure world hunger, and for the best reason of all to vote…if he wins we will have a real conservative in 2012 at the top of the ticket.

In the meantime, there is a slim chance that Palin will moderate some of McLame’s aisle crossing activities.

My education
My education was a lot better before the Department of Ed came along. Granted, I was in Catholic school - but so was WDC public schools.

Now my city - my beautiful hometown can't pave their roads or educate the children. They have been robbing their children for decades now and one in twenty has AIDs.

We have done too much damage, please just eliminate Dept of Ed. We won't notice but for the taxes we save.

Liberty & Personal Responsibility?
Why, you must be one of those right wing nutjobs I've been hearing so much about. Wherever did you get such crazy notions?

Surely you don't believe citizens should pay their own doctor bills and mortgages too, do you?

Can you imagine what our nation's founders would think to see how badly we've botched their brilliant legacy?

And we have a long line of demagogues, and Ivy League lawyers to thank - not to mention an incredibly obtuse and gullible citizenry.

As always, in the end it comes down to the lesser of two evils. We have a better shot at pressuring the republicans to come around than the democrats. They are way too far in the tank with trial lawyers, labor unions, eco-whackos, lifelong government bureaucrats, and other socialist/fascist groups to ever embrace the ideals upon which this nation was created.

Democracy
Due to some combination of politicians, media, and government monopoly schools, we have degenerated from the republic mandated in Article 4, Section 4 into a "wonderful" democracy. Now, I can vote your money into my pocket by buying and stealing 50.01% of the votes, and I can also cram my version of Utopia down everyone's throat the same way. What the public seems to want is nanny fascism.

God save our republic. The politicians certainly won't, and the 5-4 Supremes won't either.

poorgrandchildren.com
That is one other chance if Mclame wins. He has promised to appoint originalst judges. If the Dems maintain control of the Senate the best he can do is appoint judges like Sandra Day O flip flop and Kapricious kennedy, but the judges most likely do die in office are massively liberal.

I say die in office because if the Republicans win they will NOT retire. They will try to hang on until 2012 when Palin runs against Hillary.

There is also a very small chance that the Dems will lose control of the Senate AND Mclame will appoint originalist judges.

And BTW
One thing that has become an apparent problem is that Roberts appears to be reluctant to overturn liberal precedent. Now that may be a case of Kennedy being the swing vote, but it may also be the case of he just doesn't wish to overturn their precedent.

Liberal precedent
In case of any conflict, the 5-4 Supremes will generally honor the erroneous decisions of dead judges and will not honor their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. An extremely conservative attorney friend of mine thinks that is correct because precedents (even bad ones) give us certainty in the law. I argue that a non-living Constitution would give us a better certainty in the law.

Mr. Sullum
Great article and I repeat you, "The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it's convenient."

Americans have been convinced that we have a democracy and that it is wonderful, so get your 50.01% and force your will on everyone. The Constitution has become a mere footnote in ancient history.

An Outstanding Article Few Will Read.
And as such it will elicit only a few comments, and what is infinitely worse is that even fewer will read Sullum's article at all.

And that is a shame, for his columns are far superior to most other Townhall columnists who deem themselves serious conservative commentators.

As a traditional conservative, I have no problem with Sullum's critique of the Republican party, since it ostensibly has touted itself as the small government, states- rights party.

Among the many dullards who are incapable of accepting ANY criticism of President Bush or John McCain, there are precious few with sufficient discernment to recognize that government intrusion is every bit as offensive when practiced by arrogant bureaucrats in foisting "proper" nanny-state regulations on domestic behavior, as when extended to foreign affairs by this neocon obsession in foisting "proper" notions of acceptable(democratic)governance upon Muslim societies.

Sullum clearly identifies the hypocrisies inherent in modernday GOP dogma.

Yes, the Democrats are probably worse(at least on nanny-state domestic matters).

But the essential difference is we expected it from the Democrats.

We did not expect it from the Republicans.



I just read this
Thanks to poorgrandchildren.com bringing it to my attention on Tony Blankley's thread.

I have been saying this since George Bush 41.

The republican Party has no more respect for the law than the democrats do.

Now we are placed in a extreme choice in choosing McCain, another corporate owned politician, cause none can get into office without all the money they have for the most radical person to have ever been given traction by a major political party.

Obama is a disaster all by himself.
So we have now been given a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea in choosing between a republican or a democrat.

But the magnet of the two party system is too strong for its drawing power, simply because Americans are back slid from God and are following a blind leader of the blind in either party.

Obama is just the worst is all, a faster death is all he brings for the Liberty once men died for.

Thank you Mr. Sullum
Right on the money. I'm sorry to say that as it appears to me, the majority of republicans are just sheep of a different color than the democratic voters, but sheep none the less.

The Republicrats and the demosocialists have more in common than differences. They both seek power for thier own benefit. Todays GOP is yesterdays Democratic party, todays Democratic Party is yesterdays Communist party. Both are completely unacceptable.

There was a Republican candidate that talked about eliminating these unconstitutional entities, but the GOP marginalized him in every way because he didn't fit the neocon agenda.

The GOP is currently a disgusting elite power brokerage house, that represents pretty much nothing I believe in. Their actions speak much louder than the occasional lip service they give to the constitution. Sickening.

All I can say
Is great article! My thoughts 100%, but too bad the CINO, theocratic authoritarians who love big government as long as it suits their purposes--abortion, gay rights, illegal drugs, porn, you name it.

Concepts like state rights, liberty, freedom is as alien to them as it is the leftists as I said for many in the GOP/"Conservative" movement are just as much anti-freedom as thos eon the left, they are the same enemy just attacking on different fronts.

If more in the GOP were like the author, it would be better off.

What is the alternative?
OK, Sullum makes a valid point. How do you propose to change it? A third party? Really? Just keep preaching small government-originalism and hope that the bureaucrats and career politicians have the scales fall from their eyes like Saul on the road to Damascus?

We need something more concrete.

It has to start at home. If you're a real conservative, and if you can swing it, school your kids at home. We need to produce the next generation of conservatives, and it's going to take time. Thank God-yes, God, you leftists-thank God that we believe in reproducing and large families. But we need to produce and educate the next generation, because Goldwater's not sleeping under a mountain, waiting to rise again, Reagan's not sleeping on Avalon, awaiting the call to come and save us.

Short of a cataclysm, like a civil war, we are not going to undo the pernicious effects of over 100 years of Progressivism/Marxism/Leftism overnight. It's going to take long, concentrated work, something fewer and fewer Americans are capable of.

Obama delenda est.

Let's not overgeneralize
Most of this article is accurate, but it's not true that, as one commenter wrote, "the majority of republicans are just sheep of a different color than the democratic voters, but sheep none the less." There has long been a battle within the GOP between the big-gov't, country-club, Rockefeller Republicans and the more conservative Reagan wing. The Rockefeller types support pro-business, pro-growth policies, but they lust for power just like Democrats, so they spend taxpayers' money to buy votes. The Reagan wing says, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." No one will be able to tear down an entrenched bureaucracy overnight (even Bob Barr admitted that to Glenn Beck), but we zealously want to whittle away at it as quickly as possible.

Akagi
If I remember correctly, you're not even an American; other TH regulars say you live in Taiwan.

If there's anyone here at TH who tries to elevate the discussions and promote civility, it's me. That said, your comment about "theocratic authoritarians" is just about the stupidest, most retarded, least-supported, malicious canard that, unfortunately, is repeated all too often around here. Get lost, fool. And don't mistake this for an invitation to debate, you pathetic smear artist. We all get it: you hate Christians.

That's all.

Re: Agreed!...But what's the alternative
Deaar Mr. Sullum.
I agree with you 100%, but, you are no better.
If not McCain and a Republican, who at least has some respect for the Constitution, and mainly for the American ideal, then you would suggest Barak Obama and Joe Biden who don't even question their Constistutional rights and limitations as executives?
Sadly, dacades old veering off the path of our founding fathers ideal of governance, it is a pied pipers dream that we can completely turn back the clocks to an era of true personal freedom and responsibility.
We have one choice, and that is to curtail some presidential wannabes' ambitions, through our vote of choosing the lesser of two evil. And that is what you, hopefully an avowed conservative, should urge us to do.

Huh?
"Yet their position that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment implies that the Constitution not only allows but requires a national ban on abortion, which also would override state policy choices."

The Constitution is un-Constitutional? Huh? If the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States powers not granted the Federal Government, how the heck does the right to life, a part of the Constitution, not define a power specifically granted to the Federal Government and reserved to the Individual?

Wow, that's almost as convoluted of logic I've seen since Roe v. Wade. Working backwards from a conclusion usually is...

Robert

excellent piece
Oh, to have more Christian Right activists understand the limits of government!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.