As regular VC readers know, I am one of several conspirators who is supporting Fred Thompson's campaign for President. I cannot speak for the others, but my reasons for supporting Thompson include his commitment to federalism, his candor on important issues other candidates would prefer to avoid (e.g. entitlements), and his record on regulatory reform and government oversight over the past thirty years. For National Review's pentultimate issue (the one before they endorsed Mitt Romney), I authored an article making the conservative case for Thompson. For those without subscriptions to the print magazine, here is an excerpt:
Sen. Fred Thompson may be a professional actor, but it’s hard to find a more authentic conservative candidate in this campaign. He has been a consistent champion of fiscal discipline, national security, and government reform, among other issues important to the Right. As National Review recently editorialized, “Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness” yet to be matched by any other candidate. More than anyone else, he advocates a conservatism of the head that should appeal to conservative hearts. If the Republican nomination should go to the most principled and consistent conservative in the race, there should be little question that Fred Thompson is the man to nominate.In addition to supporting Thompson, I share Ilya's aversion to Mike Huckabee, and his brand of know-nothing, big government populism. In my view, there is nothing conservative (and certainly nothing remotely libertarian) about Huckabee's agenda. Hence, I declared myself both "Pro-Fred and Anti-Huck."Some worry Thompson doesn’t want the presidency badly enough. In an era when politicians plan their political moves years, if not decades, in advance, Thompson is almost an accidental candidate: someone willing to run if the people want him on his terms. This may be his greatest liability — but it should also be an asset in wooing conservatives to his cause.
Thompson, after all, is not running a campaign of simple slogans or pandering platitudes. He is willing to take positions that risk offending potential constituencies. Witness his attack on the gluttonous farm bill and opposition to some business-favored federal tort reforms. He may have been unprepared to answer a media question about the “Jena 6,” but he can discuss the crisis in Pakistan, the threat of nuclear proliferation, regulatory bloat, or the future of entitlements with a level of nuance and detail that comes only from genuine intellectual engagement. If Republicans are looking for an “anti-Hillary” — a reluctant candidate with a commitment to limited government who will bring honor and integrity to the White House — it would be hard to do better than Fred.
There are many things I don't like about Huck, ranging from his economic illiteracy and protectionist impulses to his embrace of creationism and nanny-state mentality. As Kimberly Strassel noted in the WSJ, Huckabee sounds good, but the substance is often lacking — and what substance there is provides little comfort.
Over on NRO's The Corner, I have blogged a bit about Huckabee's call to quarantine AIDS victims in 1992. (See also here and here.) Questioned about this statement in the past week, the Huckabee campaign has dissembled (as I noted here), denying he called for a quarantine and pretending as if this was not an irresponsible policy position in 1992. Huck himself took the same tack when asked about the issue on Fox News Sunday, denying the clear import of his prior statement, and suggesting his position was correct, although he would "say it a little differently today." I'm sorry but that's not good enough. If Huckabee cannot acknowledge that his call to "isolate" those who were HIV-positive in 1992 was grossly irresponsible, it is just one more reason he should not be the next President of the United States.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Ron Paul and the Political Strategy of Appealing to White Racial Resentment:
- The Opportunity Cost of Ron Paul:
- Ron Paul, Evolution, and Right-Wing Populism:...
- Drezner on Huck's Foreign Policy:
- Pro-Fred & Anti-Huck:
- Against Mike Huckabee:...
- Reflections on Ron Paul:
- Assessing Presidential Candidates:
- Republican Candidates Battle for the Law Professor Vote:
What can you say that is Really negative about him? I can think of reasons Not to vote for any of the other leading candidates, but am hard pressed to think of a reason Not to vote for Fred.
Also works for Obama though...
It's like voting for the Green party.
Dilan,
Fidel Castro is the only prominent social conservative I can think of that advocates a quarantine for AIDS.
Deal with it.
The GOP genuinely has gone schizophrenic. Jesus heads and torture-fetishizing neocon trotskyites managed to get along because G-dub expressed the worst aspects of each more or less in equal measure.
Too bad for them G-dub can’t run again. Instead Jesus and Trotsky have their own candidate, and the supporters of one won’t consider supporting the other. Best of all, the non-trivial number of Paul/Buchanan paleocons won’t vote for either. The complete implosion couldn’t happen to a scummier bunch of incompetent self-pitying clowns.
There's a big difference between funding for AIDS research and quarantining people with AIDS.
Why, what on earth would lead you to that conclusion?
Slightly Increase National Defense
Slightly Increase Law Enforcement
Slightly Increase International Drug Interdiction
Slightly Decrease Federal Health Care Programs
Slightly Decrease AIDS Research
Slightly Decrease Job Re-training Programs
Maintain Status Infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)
Maintain Status Public Education
Slightly Decrease Foreign Aid
Maintain Status Environmental Clean Up and Enforcement
Sounds more like a general call for slight decreases in a wide range of government programs, including health care programs generally, rather than an attempt to pick on AIDS as such. Creating a separate category for AIDS funding was a decision on the questionnaire authors' part, not Thompson's part. (Even an attempt on the candidate's part to single out AIDS funding may be justifiable if there are plausible arguments that such funding is too high given the magnitude of the health problem compared to other health problems; but here I don't even see any such attempt.)
And, yes, I too am a member of Law Professors for Fred (or whatever the group is called).
Those are the two parts of the modern Republican party.
Hopefully after the coming implosion in 2008, the Republicans will try to rebuild the party along truly conservative lines.
As I have explained in a previous set of comments section, one does not have to be an economic libertarian to be a conservative.
I find it amusing when libertarians like Adler, who, are only a small wing of the Republican party, deem to assert that more mainstream conservatives are not even conservative. It is kind of amusing.
If anyone is not conservative, it is you, Mr. Adler.
It is interesting to see libertarians claim that Alexander Hamilton type conservatives are not even conservative. I would be that a lot of social conservatives would have similar thoughts about you. And guess what. The social conservative wing of the Republican Party is the larger and more important wing.
The fact is, that social conservatives have nowhere else to go besides Huckabee. McCain was not nuanced enough in his attacks on social conservatives, painting too many social conservatives with the same broad brush. He is not getting their vote. Guiliani supports abortion. He is not getting their vote. Romney has flip-flopped on abortion when political convenient. Finally, Thompson's record on abortion is also suspect. According to wikipedia:
Also from Wikipedia:
Basically, there is no candidate who is solidly on the social conservative side who actually has a chance to win the nomination besides Mike Huckabee.
You can say he is not conservative all you want. But that simply is false. One does need to take extreme libertarian positions on all economic issues to qualify as a conservative. Think about Alexander Hamilton, a conservative who believed in having the government play an active role solving all sorts of problems.
Alexander Hamilton is more of a conservative than you are. If you want to play games excluding people from calling themselves conservative, you should face up to the reality that you are in the minority among conservatives and if anyone is going to be excluded, it is you and your ilk.
As for the comparison with quarantining, reducing government funding is clearly better from a libertarian perspective, but from a lifesaving perspective, research funding might be more important.
I suppose you could argue that AIDS was overfunded vs. other health care priorities, but that clearly wasn't his position -- he wanted to reduce funding for health care generally and shift the money to the drug war
A party that represents the true teachings of Jesus, humility, helping the needy, that all have an equal chance at paradise, and the idea of putting God before your earthly rulers goes against everything the GOP wants to accomplish.
The Republicans are the money changers that Jesus railed against in the Temple Scene.
Is Mitt right? Is endorsing new a federal constitutional amendment to restrict the states' treatment of their own citizens "conservative." Who cares? Call it conservative. Call it liberal. Call it Aunt Gertrude. That's all semantics. All I know is that I don't like it.
But I won't call myself a conservative anymore, since that title is reserved for Alexander Hamilton. From now on I am A-Guy- Who- Favors- Individual- Liberty- And-Small- Goverment- In- Particular- Small- Federal- Government- And- Who- Loves- Free- Markets- As- Much- As-He- Hates- The- Nanny- State (hereinafter "AGWFILASGIPSFGAWLFMAMAHHTNS").
As AGWFILASGIPSFGAWLFMAMAHHTNS, I naturally oppose Guys-Who- Show- Little- Affinity- For- Individual- Liberty- And- Love- Big- Goverment- And- Who- Show- Indiference-Toward- Free- Markets- And- Think- The- Nanny- State-Should- Be- "Protecting"- Us- From- Even- More- Stuff-That- We- Kinda- Like- Including- But- Not- Limited- To-Cheeseburgers- And- Janet- Jackson's- Nipples.
Is this precise enough for you?
/soapbox rant
~R. Douthat
I was beginning to panic looking at the choices:
But the mass endorsement from the VC has given me some hope that being right on the issues will finally give Fred the critical mass he needs. Right now the only hope is that Huckabee, Rudy, and Mitt will stalemate each other, McCain will drop out ans that Fred will rise to the top. But Fred doesn't look like he has the energy to climb to the top on his own, he can only get there on the corpses of a few of the other candidates.
Mike Huckabee as Alexander Hamilton!
Father Coughlin, yes. Hamilton, no.
This, to me, is the critical distinction between a Christianist and a mere Christian. One wants to infuse politics with religion; the other wants to respect both, separately, and to keep religion private. I should add I do not want to banish the word “God” from the public square. But I do want that invocation to be as thin and as empty and as formal as the Founders intended. The current Republican party has reinvented itself as a force on opposite grounds. The party of Huckabee and Romney, the party of Hewitt and Dobson, the party of Ponnuru and Neuhaus is emphatically not a secular party.
And that is why part of me, I confess, wants Huckabee to win. So he can lose. So the GOP can lose – as spectacularly and humiliatingly as possible. If we are to rid conservatism of this theocratic cancer, we need to start over. Maybe it has to get worse before it can get better. But it is certainly too late for fellow-traveling Christianists like Lowry and Krauthammer to start whining now. This is their party. And they asked for every last bit of it.~ A.Sullivan
No offense, buddy, but it sounds like you didn't do such a hot job of it. Results count, you know.
There's a big difference between funding for AIDS research and quarantining people with AIDS.
Not really.
A slight difference, perhaps, in response to Eugene's scrambling answer.
It shows the same casual lack of concern for AIDS victims, no doubt because many of the sufferers are second-class American citizens, and many Christian conservatives originally held the belief, "Hey, their lifestyles brought this upon themselves. Don't put your body parts in the garbage chute, so to speak, and expect to walk away cleanly."
Not my thinking necessarily, but to them it does make logical sense, employing the same thinking patters as say the early Jewish ban against eating shellfish or other scavenger animals. Not healthy overall.
I wonder if Huckabee is elected President, if next time the GOP attacks gays (and make no mistake, that's what these proposed amendments and passed amendments were all about) that some of the conspirators would find it in them to stand against such strategizing.
It seems like y'all were ok (justify, justify, justify was pretty much all I heard here then) with those strategies when your guy (Bush) was winning elections on those pandering platforms against gay second class citizens.
But now, when somebody reaaaallllly scary to you like a Huckabee comes along, and suddenly it's your group (non Christian) feeling left out, I wonder if y'all will rethink all your justification for the strategies and discrimination against others. Somehow, I doubt it though. You can't just turn this stuff on and off at your pleasure, you know. And sometimes what goes around comes around.
Plus, I don't think the AIDS statement revelations of 15 years ago is going to playing all that big a card as say, an Andrew Sullivan or Adler here, seems to think. Years ago, slamming the victims like that might seem harsh, but in our uber-harsh environment now, the cries of victimhood in whatever area are falling on deaf ears. It's this damned war, the coarsening of the culture, and the American urge to turn inward and let everybody else worry about their own problems. Americans don't much go in for long wars or long-term commitments without being drained, and we're not up for wars of attrition. And I suspect that's why Huckabee is appealing to many.
Oh please, since when is politics ever about substance? Your man Thompson has turned out to be a flop.
"Still a man hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... la la lala la lala"
Which brings us back to the question, are they really arguing in good faith, or do they really not see it in themselves?
Why is everybody assuming that Huckabee or Romney won't garner enough support in the West and the Bible Belt to beat Obama or Clinton? Y'all should get out to the red states and recognize Huckabee is not the aberration so many seem to think. So he's losing in New Hampshire, so what? Those northeast liberal states will vote Democrat no matter.
Have y'all seen the recent poll results of who's leading in ... Florida? Or New York South, where Guiliani was commanding a lead just a month ago... Maybe that state would go Dem this election too (I've got a funny feeling the Florida vote can be manipulated either way in the "right" hands with enough cash influx) but it's interesting to see who's rising there now.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Huckabee is the new Teflon president, where nothing sticks -- the fattie Christmas photos, the AIDs and evolution revelations, the cries of fiscal liberalism. Damn, could we have found in the Southern Baptists some folks who really (gulp) believe what they're saying, that faith is key and influences their vote?
"So you will reap what you have sowed." See in those agricultural states, folks understand that no matter how you want to tend to your gardens now and influence your crops, what determines what you get started with those little -- seemingly unimportant to y'all at the time of planting -- seeds. And once they start sprouting, you'll have a devil of a time tearing them all out by hand.
And guns and weapons and technology don't do much good in stopping them either, unless you're willing to obliterate the whole garden. That garden now being America. Suck it up these candidacies, and learn from it. It really won't be all that bad, you can wait it out if necessary, and it's not like you'll legally be a second class citizen in the eyes of the laws or anything.
Couple of points:
One. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Huckabee directed all the state agencies of Arkansas to do everything possible to help the victims and the corresponding state agencies in Lousiana. He made it clear that he wouldn't tolerate bureaucratic delay -- "figure out the red tape later" was the modus operandi. He and his wife put their own sweat equity into the effort, working through the night to process thousands of Katrina refugees through the reception center at Fort Chaffee to long-term shelters around the state of Arkansas. They were there to work. No photographers. No press conferences. No publicity stunts.
Two. While running a small, poor state for almost a decade, Huckabee demonstrably improved health care, infrastructure, technological applications in government, and the organization of the executive branch . . . without once incurring a budget deficit.
Anyway, the "pro-Fred and anti-Huck" debate is really a waste of time. The Republican party is too smart to nominate Fred and too dumb to nominate Huck.
I will spend every waking moment trying to prevent his election.
As for Florida... they got another gay bashing amendment on the ballot for Nov08... so it looks like Florida is a safe Republican state again. It'll all come down to Ohio.
Not likely - Dumond will bring him down.
But how do you know he really meant it? Even if he still says so. Remember, GWB was in favor of the Federal Marriage amendment, but we were all told to look past that because he was just doing what was politically advantageous, didn't really mean it, eh?
Funny how anti-intellectualism is ok when it's our anti-intellectual (GWB), but now we're all going to get up in arms when our guy is Fred from t.v. Heck, even the Cheney daughter is working on his campaign... (no, not that that one.)
Eh. I've heard you can still really ride the pony a long way when the Alzheimer's kicks in.
EV, a LIBERTARIAN who SUPPORTS Thompson, points out that Thompson's position is, essentially, to take the CURRENT FEDERAL BUDGET and SLIGHTLY DECREASE funding on some issues while SLIGHTLY INCREASING funding on other issues. I guess, for the candidate supported by libertarian legal theorists, we are already pretty close to the best of all possible worlds...
This is, for anyone with an appreciation of the history of libertarian thought, a toss-up between really funny and really shameful...
Then let's distribute the research money fairly. We'll take the numbers of Americans who suffer from likely fatal diseases (alternately the number who die of them, take your pick) and use that to guide how the research money is spent.
I'm sure any good statistician could come up with a formula that compensates for some forms of death (pneumonia) coming disproportioniately in old age, whereas some forms of cancer are most frequently found in children, and thus arrive at an alternate test for which disease results in the most years of lost life, and allocate funding according to that.
Depending upon choice, there could or could not be compensation for lifestyle running up the risk, either in the case of AIDS or of smoking.
Take your pick, but let the funding test be fair.
2. Conservatives are, I think, an amalgamation of two general groups. The liberarian wing, and the social wing. All they have in common is that Liberals alienate them both, by wanting no social standards or controls (often even voluntary social ones) and lots of economic controls. What do "conservatives" Huckaby, Paul, and Thompson have in common, except that each has an aspect in which they are NOT Hillary or Obama.
Can you point out the part where Hillary or Obama (or for that matter, any of the current Democratic presidential candidates) advocate social anarchy? Thanks.
The former so-called because they tend to be quite well read.
Sorry, try again.
Cornellian: you should grow up and use that humor to write funny law school exams.
Then let's distribute the research money fairly. We'll take the numbers of Americans who suffer from likely fatal diseases (alternately the number who die of them, take your pick) and use that to guide how the research money is spent.
I'm sure any good statistician could come up with a formula that compensates for some forms of death (pneumonia) coming disproportioniately in old age, whereas some forms of cancer are most frequently found in children, and thus arrive at an alternate test for which disease results in the most years of lost life, and allocate funding according to that.
Depending upon choice, there could or could not be compensation for lifestyle running up the risk, either in the case of AIDS or of smoking.
Take your pick, but let the funding test be fair.
What about drinking? Inherited disease and those with weaker gene pools? Why not just go with Social Darwinism?
Life isn't fair. Especially when you're down in the polls, eh? Quarantines, cuts in funding -- it's all Teflon at this point because we're past the AIDS hysteria days.
The former so-called because they tend to be quite well read.
And because they are poor spellers.
Anarchy is a state of no government, so of course they don't back that (nor does anyone else running for office, strangely).
I'm talking about matters more subtle than a platform. Can we judge (other than in economics, or for being judgmental) another person, institution, or culture? Whether the "other" is, oh, islam, the transgendered, whatever. Is it permissible to say of the "other" that which they do not say of themselves (or perhaps not even that)?
What is the role played by non-governmental groups and the standards they impose? Does it "take a village" (i.e., a government) to raise a child, or does it take a family?
That, I believe, is the split between what we identify as liberal and that which we identify as the social conservative.
I'm not ideologue. I can see, in practical terms, the problems with all three approaches.
Life isn't fair. Especially when you're down in the polls, eh? Quarantines, cuts in funding -- it's all Teflon at this point because we're past the AIDS hysteria days.
OK. Take your pick. (1) base funding on number of persons infected/dying, or (2) on number of lost years due to premature death or (3) on either of the previous, modified by degree due to lifestyle choices.
Any of the above could be fair, and in a world where we all die once, perhaps all are equally fair and unfair. But in practice, and now my libertarian side will show, government tends to allocate research funding based on the latest media stories, which often means it reflects none of the above.
A party that follows that -- judge no one, do not pursue wealth or power over others, the only rules are love God and your neighbor -- is, sad to say, going to be a rather small political party. And going to be hard put to find candidates. To use the common terms, liberals pursue power, libertarians pursue wealth, and social conservatives pursue both, with some favor toward power.
Libertarians pursue ... wealth? I think you meant freedoms, and sometimes -- believe it or not -- the two aren't interchangeable.
(Ask yourself: Do you own your possessions, or do they own you? Freedoms first. Plenty of things money can't buy, or rather you can pay for, but others get them free.)
Supposedly the most powerful country in the world and we can't seem to find a president with any moral integrity. Yeah I said it, as in the integrity to admit they don't know squat about an afterlife. Just like the rest of us.
Like an empty cathedral draws the priest, what is not there should sometimes call forth more than what is.
If libertarians only want wealth, then they sure aren't going to put one of there own into office...it's hard to rip off a small government that doesn't spend any money. just think of all that government money that they would no longer be getting.
Libertarians pursue ... wealth? I think you meant freedoms, and sometimes -- believe it or not -- the two aren't interchangeable.
(Ask yourself: Do you own your possessions, or do they own you? Freedoms first. Plenty of things money can't buy, or rather you can pay for, but others get them free.)
Many Americans respond to Huckabee because they are social conservatives. That much is simple. And the view has a good legacy (John Adams) and a good empirical grounding. The view that men are innately virtuous has certain empirical problems. (I am open to Jefferson's riposte that if men are not naturally virtuous, why expect rulers, elected or otherwise, to be anything else?).
That libertarians value wealth is apparent from my experience. And that forms the distinction from liberals (who agree with them that government is corrupting -- except when it comes to redistributing money. Then the liberal believes that government is impartial, reasoned, dispassionate. Having actually worked in government -- staff, not political appointee -- I found it otherwise. Humans are humans, whether government or otherwise.
I have enormous regard for the Framers, simply because they consulted human nature and did their very best with the crooked timber that is the only material any government has at hand. Would that later generations had shared the same cynical yet hopeful insights.
Cough! I knew Abraham ... oh, nevermind.
Such towering minds come along once in a century, if a nation is lucky. Do read "Team of Rivals." The guy had at best one year of schooling. He appointed a cabinet of the most powerful men in the country, including ALL FOUR of his rivals in the primary. They thought they'd rule him; they were senators, governors. Another, upon their first encounter, had pulled someone aside and asked why he'd brought this ungainly ape into their legal case. And he kept them in line.
Unlike GW Bush, whom you supported in 2000 and 2004? Thompson is dishonest, to the extent he positions himself as a "good" and "clean government" guy, and yet advocates pardoning Libby. I guess committing perjury to the FBI and a federal grand jury is no big deal to Fred.
I like McCain, for his integrity, but don't agree with him on all of the positions.
Any of the above could be fair, and in a world where we all die once, perhaps all are equally fair and unfair. But in practice, and now my libertarian side will show, government tends to allocate research funding based on the latest media stories, which often means it reflects none of the above.
Dave Hardy,
Let me take you back in time, when we didn't know as much about the HIV virus as we do now.
Damn right a lot of people would like research of a rapidly spreading, potentially contagious "unknown" disease like AIDS. We didn't know for a long time how it transferred -- remember those infected by blood transfusions before we knew?
You seem to think funding disease research is all about emotionalism. Try to think logically (and in doing so, you might have to forget many of the early victims were the "second-class citizens who brought it on themselves".)
Research isn't just about "saving lives" and balancing funds between cancer, cardiovascular, and AIDS say. The money spent learning more: how it's transmitted, how to stop the virus from advancing to full blown AIDS, how to prevent it's advancing in society, whether through possible vaccines or just plain education.
See, you can't just play with the numbers. You have to actually THINK about what and why you might prefer to spent more researching this new mysterious unknown disease rather than others that have been funded for years. Don't get so emotional over the deaths, and think about the logical common sense of it?
Cough! I knew Abraham ... oh, nevermind.
Glad you caught that one.
Think you're the smartest one in the room, eh?
Do read "Team of Rivals." The guy had at best one year of schooling
No... get out! Next thing you'll be telling me he grew up in a log cabin too, and walked for miles to borrow books. Glad you found something appealing to read though; let me know if you'd like some recommendations of my own. You seem kind of stuck on yourself, and might want to come out and learn a little bit about today's Americans.
The view that men are innately virtuous has certain empirical problems.
Depends on the subgroup you're counting on.
No, if you think it's all about obtaining money and power. Sadly, some don't figure that out until they're on their deathbeds. "God make bees. Bees make honey. God make man. Man make money."
Good luck to you, though!
Funny.
The libertarians I know value freedoms in my experience.
Maybe you're just hanging with the wrong crowd here?
But twenty seconds of research reveals that the statement seems to have been in a survey he filled out for Project VoteSmart that for some reason asks about the candidate's position on "AIDS research" (which he said he'd like to "slightly decrease"). Thompson wanted to "slightly decrease" funding on a lot of things, and since the survey didn't ask about medical research, scientific research generally, or anything similar, there's no way to tell whether he wanted to cut AIDS funding because he wanted to cut medical research generally, wanted to reshuffle the medical research budget towards some other disease (cancer?), or just wanted to cut AIDS funding in particular. So I think it's hard to get much information out of that question.
Well, gee, Dave, what about some other options? What if we base funding on how much people with diseases, and people they motivate, and people concerned about them, choose to contribute? Or we could base funding on how much drug companies entrepreneurially choose to put into research and development for every disease they decide to study? Government funding of research has led to much more expensive research, but there's little evidence it has led to more cures, and certainly no evidence it has led to more cost-effective cures.
One way to avoid the politicalization of medical research--is AIDS funding too high or too low compared to cancer funding? Is breast cancer research too high or too low compared to prostate cancer funding?--is to take government funding out of medical research. Pork barrel spending is pork barrel spending, even when we agree with the cause being subsidized. If we think "society" is spending to little on medical research (which if you look at the figures is ridiculous), than make contributions to medical research tax-deductible, don't politicize it by having the government choose winners and losers on issues of life and death.
Given all the Huck-hate going around here, would you guys rather have me vote for Romney? Or should I still waste my vote on a Thompson / Paul?
Citing Alexander Hamilton as though he were somehow relevant to Mike Huckabee because Hamilton was for bigger government than Madison is either ignorant or dishonest. Or both. Hamilton was not in favor of a federal government that tried to control obesity and smoking. Hamilton may have been less libertarian than Madison. He may have been less libertarian than Murray Rothbard. But he was far more libertarian than Huckabee.
Alexander Hamilton does not define conservatism, but if it did, nobody faithful to the legacy of Hamilton is supporting Mike Huckabee.
In short, I'm pretty sure the notion of a "party" representing the teachings of Jesus is pretty silly.
Libertarianism doesn't have to be silly. The missing-market (for research funding) problem is here is readily apparent, and while it would be nice and make my libertarian bits feel all warm and fuzzy if we could solve it through private action alone, we don't have to deny the reality of collective action problems to be consistent with our principles.
Don't vote for a member of a cult, please! None of the cults in question, even. Even Giuliani's dirty Catholic is better than Huckabee and Romney's raving lunatics.
----
To be fair, David, virtually anyone alive back in the 18th century in America was more libertarian than Huckabee (or any Presidential contender besides Paul...). That makes it perhaps more appropriate to interpret the Hamilton comments (which I haven't followed carefully) in a relative, not absolute, way.
Given all the Huck-hate going around here, would you guys rather have me vote for Romney? Or should I still waste my vote on a Thompson / Paul?"
-----
I just don't understand this point of view. If the two leading contenders in the REPUBLICAN Iowa caucus were Obama and Clinton, would you feel obligated to "not waste" your vote by choosing between them rather than, say, Ron Paul, despite the fact Paul supports positions much more to your liking? This notion of voters as sports fans--you "lose" if your candidate/team loses--is errant nonsense, and very harmful to the concept of a Republic.
Quin Hillyer argues that "Fred's Not Dead." Perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part, but recall that in December of 2004, we were expecing a President Howard Dean, and John Kerry's campaign was supposedly washed up.
JHA
And I guess the fact that Thompson supports a constitutional amendment that would ban gays from marrying is just one of those silly little things that he must say to pander to the social conservatives, right? Afterall, such an enlighted man wouldn't actually be homophobic, right?
Fred's position on this is actually more dangerous to GLB rights IMO, as he (as I understand it) supports the constitutionalization of DOMA. That might actually get through Congress, as opposed to the other guys' (except Giuliani and Paul) proposals, which never would.
Fred Thompson does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Instead, he would support a constitutional amendment that bars the imposition of gay marriage by the judiciary. In effect, it would be similar to a constitutionalization of DOMA. Such an amendment would not prevent state legislatures from adopting gay marriage, civil unions, or anything else, and Thompson has been explicit on that point.
I agree with Thompson's position. While I support gay marriage (largely for the reason's articulated by my co-conspirator, Dale Carpenter), I do not believe it is constitutionally required, nor do I believe it should be imposed by judicial fiat.
JHA
Let me take you back in time, when we didn't know as much about the HIV virus as we do now.
Damn right a lot of people would like research of a rapidly spreading, potentially contagious "unknown" disease like AIDS. We didn't know for a long time how it transferred -- remember those infected by blood transfusions before we knew?"
Sure. But one can say as much about many other killer ailments (except that cancer is not contagious -- it largely happens out of bad luck. I'd fear an ailment like that all the more, since you can avoid contagion, but not bad luck). So why not take one of my three tests for funding? I don't propose to de-fund anything, just reduce the political/PR skewing of resources. You seem to find that proper, yet I haven't heard a single defense of it.
"You seem to think funding disease research is all about emotionalism. Try to think logically (and in doing so, you might have to forget many of the early victims were the "second-class citizens who brought it on themselves".) "
I am thinking quite logically. I don't even know what results my tests would bring, altho I suspect we'd find that funding right now is proportional to how many media stories there were on a given disease, instead of how many people it affects, or kills, or kills prematurely.
As far as "brought it on themselves," when my ex wife was dying of lung cancer, she told us it was lymphoma. She'd smoked, and probably figured (as I subsequently found to be true) that many hearers would figure "well, you brought it on yourself." To get AIDS from a dirty needle would be a tragedy; to get lung cancer from smoking would very much be "well, what did you expect?"
"Research isn't just about "saving lives" and balancing funds between cancer, cardiovascular, and AIDS say. The money spent learning more: how it's transmitted, how to stop the virus from advancing to full blown AIDS, how to prevent it's advancing in society, whether through possible vaccines or just plain education."
Again, what's wrong with any of my three formulae? Fund disease counters (therapies, vaccines, education, whatever) in proportion to how much damage the disease does to us.
"See, you can't just play with the numbers. You have to actually THINK about what and why you might prefer to spent more researching this new mysterious unknown disease rather than others that have been funded for years. Don't get so emotional over the deaths, and think about the logical common sense of it?"
I am doing so. This appears to be the first time you have argued against any of my three proposals. And the argument is merely that we should crank in some compensation for the uncertainty of a new disease (tho all the killer disease I can think of have been around for decades) and how well other diseases have previously been studied. And maybe a converse adjustment where education can do a lot to reduce the disease, since education is cheaper than research.
I have a friend who works in cancer research, and also studying AIDS. He maintains that it may not be too long before we have a cure for cancer that will also greatly slow aging... they're flip sides of the same coin. One of the mutations necessary to a cancer cell (and every case of cancer starts with ONE cell) is immortality.
"Cough! I knew Abraham ... oh, nevermind.
Glad you caught that one.
Think you're the smartest one in the room, eh?
Do read "Team of Rivals." The guy had at best one year of schooling
No... get out! Next thing you'll be telling me he grew up in a log cabin too, and walked for miles to borrow books. Glad you found something appealing to read though; let me know if you'd like some recommendations of my own. You seem kind of stuck on yourself, and might want to come out and learn a little bit about today's Americans.
The view that men are innately virtuous has certain empirical problems.
Depends on the subgroup you're counting on.
No, if you think it's all about obtaining money and power. Sadly, some don't figure that out until they're on their deathbeds. "God make bees. Bees make honey. God make man. Man make money." "
I said *innately* virtuous. While there are many virtuous men about, at least if we avoid politics, on the whole I don't think we are born that way. We are civilized into it.
You'd really take the power out of the Supreme Court hands to rule on individual rights, all because you are so certain today that "I do not believe it is constitutionally required". (presumably relying on Dale Carpenter's analysis to be the final say?)
This is why we don't put civil rights laws up for a majority vote.
Could you imagine, 50 years ago, if Fred Thompson had supported the same Federal Amendment run-around on say, issues involving discrimination against coloreds?
All because our allegedly wisest law professors back then thought:
"I do not believe it is constitutionally required, nor do I believe it should be imposed by judicial fiat. But I'm okay with majority voting, state-by-state, to determine if black and white children will be separated into equal (*cough, cough*) school systems".
Or if you don't much care about that example, how about if the majority got together today and passed an amendment, say on the rights of individuals to own guns?
"I do not believe it is constitutionally required, nor do I believe it should be imposed by judicial fiat."
So you're taking the power of analysis out of the Supreme Court hands -- for today, tomorrow and forever, unless you again want to amend this great document by majority vote -- because way back when, the good majority of citizens thought they knew best how the Constitution should be interpreted for all time.
Dig, dig, dig.
Weasel, weasel, weasel.
But of course you support gay marriage -- largely for the reason's articulated by your smarter-today-than-SCOTUS-tomorrow co-conspirator, Dale Carpenter.
It's equal protection of the law, baby. I hope we both live long enough where you can admit the folly of your argument when the SCOTUS finally treats gay and straight citizens alike, in the same manner so many of our finest and wisest in the past -- if they lived long enough -- came to grips with the idea that the coloreds across the nation were just as deserving equal treatment under the laws. Without putting their individual rights up state-by-state for a popular vote.
Enjoy your privilege and inflated social status, in the meantime!
"
And we know, now, thanks to RESEARCH that the HIV virus can't be spread through sneezing, hot tubs, light kissing, or sharing unsterialized silverware or a doob even.
I don't think we are born that way. We are civilized into it.
Again, probably depends on the subgroup and the genes. Plenty out there born innocent, and tempermentally suited to resist the urges to sabotage the group for individual gain. You don't teach a rabbit to run, anymore than you teach a predator animal to prey. It's hardwired many of our traits; no civilization needed.
"Don't get so emotional over the deaths, and think about the logical common sense of it?"
I am doing so. This appears to be the first time you have argued against any of my three proposals.
Lol.
No, no appeal to emotionalism in your earlier posts. And isn't it funny how you finally hear what someone else is saying when you actually start listening, without preconceived ideas in your mind?
(all the killer disease I can think of have been around for decades)
Guess what, junior?
As we learned in the early 80s, new or previously unknown "killer diseases" can prsumably spring up out of nowhere... (I suspect you think today that we've already invented all the "new" inventions man will ever think up either, eh? Similar lazy logic, indeed.)
Too late! I've already graduated.
And you assumed I didn't know what "inate" mean, huh?
Lordy, what an arrogant dumbbell you are.
Too late! I've already graduated.
Yeah, most law professors have...
(read it again, and maybe think it through this time?)
(is this dumbbells on parade here today, or what??) :-)
At least he loves his children.
If the shoe fits...
(Sorry, I never did buy much into that p.c. crap, "Temper your words, lest they offend.")
Some people are pbsessed by Jooos.
It's perfectly possible to support gay marriage and still think that its not constitutionally required. Just as it is possible to support a right to abortion and thing that Roe was wrongly decided.
Also, assuming there is such a thing as a right and wrong interpretation of the Constitution, the S.Ct. has clearly gotten some issues wrong. (Any case that overrules a previous one is evidence that at least one of the two decisions must be wrong.)
So, if a person believes the Equal Protection clause does not protect distinctions based on sexual preference, and thinks the Court might get this wrong, that 'could' be a basis for supporting an amendment which provides the interpretation or removes the issue from the Court. I think that that kind of amendment is stupid. And the Court's treatment of the other amendment that was supposed to guide interpretation only -- the 11th amendment -- has been so far away from the text of that amendment, that I would not be very wary of any future amendment that was supposed have the same sort of limited effect.
Only if you assume that the only solution for every problem is is a government program.
Fiscal discipline is important to the Right? Sorry Ilya, but while the Right likes to talk about fiscal discipline, on the evidence it is of no importance whatsoever.
When the GOP, and the Right, stops believing the kind of nonsense the Club for Growth puts out about taxes and starts taking the fiscal situation seriously I'll accept that this is important to them. Until then, it's shamelessly dishonest rhetoric.
Absolutely correct.
But what Thompson is proposing here, and Adler endorsing, is even more dangerous than "judicial activism".
It's the idea of passing a federal amendment taking individual rights OUT of the hands of the Supreme Court because they might possibly decide it "wrong". Wrong, not according the wisest judicial minds we allegedly have on the High Court -- confirmed by elected senators, appointed by an elected president.
Instead, we apparently should base our knowledge of what the Constitution says on individual rights based on what a late 20th century law proffy thinks (our wisest societal and legal minds are found in the ivory towers, apparently), seconded by another junior professor who wrote this post, and confirmed by majority post.
It's so twisted it's beyond belief -- taking the futures of individuals defined by Constitutional law out of SCOTUS hands because you already know the "correct" answer, natch! today. Arrogant beyond belief. But of course he supports gay rights, and a woman's right to decide what should be done with her own body. It's those political activist judges that can't be trusted.
I wonder what pet issue of Mr. Adler's we could put up for a majority vote, and take out of the judicial hands for all time -- until supporters gain enough votes to overturn the amendment, that is?
I mean, come on. Look at who they're willing to support as a presidential candidate here, soley to see their pet issues come into play -- Fred "I played on on t.v.!" Thompson. No thank you. He's no Ronald Reagan in the charisma department -- that's what they missed. We should not trust our great ivory "thinkers" no matter how they pay lip service to supporting an individual's sovereign rights to his body, or the equal protection of the law.
Professors don't always know best.
And when they err, rarely do their own up to their mistakes. But these blogs are like a track record, keeping score of their brainwork, eh? (Can I get an "indeed"? Lol.)
Only if you assume that the only solution for every problem is is a government program.
Right. And a major unknown epidemic killing people and contagious is not worthy of government funding to study. You're showing your colors on who you think would be affected by such lost funds. (Can you say .... innocent children like Ryan White?) Now go -- don't you have some individual roads to construct or something?
Some people are pbsessed by Jooos.
I think Borat pretty much played that card out. Though I do wonder -- is such whininess inborn, or are y'all still angry and rebelling from when they cut your pee-pee because they identified you early on as J**S? I image that sexual numbness msut be gratified in other ways -- and calling yourself names and attributing it to others must really excite some of you's to the point of stimulation, the way you continually try to work that one in. Sorry, Borat beat you to the movie -- exposing anti-Semitism by belitting the tribe. Throw yourselves down the damned well if you like, but don't go accusing others when nobody tries to stop you and you do hit rock bottom.
Just to clarify my position, I oppose the FMA but support a constitutional DOMA, of the sort advocated by Michael Greve. The language of such an amendment would simply keep the definition of marriage where it has always been — in the hands of state governments — and would prevent federal courts from defining marriage for federal purposes as anything other than a union between a man and a woman without legislative authorization.
I find odd your characterization of my position as "arrogant," as I do not seek to have my preferred policy outcome (acceptance of gay marriage) imposed by the judiciary. Rather, I would like to see this position adopted by the people, through the democratic process. The proposed amendment would prevent one state from imposing its values on the people of other states, and (in my view) is thus an appropriate response to judicial overreach, much like prior amendments that were adopted for similar purposes.
As for issues about which I have strong normative preferences but do not wish to see decided in the Courts, there are many. Here is one recent example.
JHA
Too late! I've already graduated.
Yeah, most law professors have...
(read it again, and maybe think it through this time?)
I'm impressed that you think I am a law professor.
I am not as articulate as Prof. Volokh:
I would agree with you, except he's not saying it should be that way because he supports that interpretation. Instead, he's saying that he supports that interpretation, and if people could move the machinery that needs to be moved to pass a constitutional amendment, he would support the amendment. I wouldn't support that amendment, but I do believe generally in the amendment process. It sounds like you think there are certain ways in which the constitution should not be open for amendment. Ultimately, I think that's even more dangerous.
Absolutely agree.
Ironically, it was YOU who wrote the post I responded to.
Can we please stop pulling out the tired "Some people are pbsessed by Jooos" language? It's offensive and adds nothing.
If you were a black man, would you properly refer to yourself as a N****R? Or a Spanish man refer to yourself as a W*P or SP*C? Probably not.
It used to be a way more common way to shut down discussion here, but it's not so effective anymore.
Please stop slurring the Jewish people in this way and trying to shut down what had been a mature discussion. If you can't talk nice and have such hatred for youself inside, why not just go have a drink? People can be critical of Israel and not hate on the J**S, believe it or not, no matter what you've been taught. That kind of mentality I'd expect in a madrassas. (Say, you don't draw swastikas on your own door and report them as hate crimes, do you?)
And if I am wrong in assuming you belong to the group you're slurring, double shame on you.
Double talk.
Double talk.
It sounds like you think there are certain ways in which the constitution should not be open for amendment.
I don't buy that Dale Carpenter (who??) should present himself as having the "correct" answer, and we put it up for majority vote and take the idea of individual rights out of the judicial process.
Imagine if some professor had "correctly" concluded in 1950 that black parents do not have the right to have their children educated alongside whites, and the majority of Americans amended the Constitution to deny them their day in court.
?? You need a remedial logic class.
You wrote something wacky. I wrote:
"Cornellian: you should grow up and use that humor to write funny law school exams."
You wrote:
Too late! I've already graduated.
See, if you're going to grow up and write law school exams, then you would one day have to be a professor. And in order to be a professor, of course you would need to go to law school first.
I said: Yeah, most law professors have...
So you see, it's not too late for you at all! (Do take that remedial logic class first though, and maybe brush up on your reading comp as well. It's not all Tarot cards, creative writing, and Latin, you know.)
And it would be embarrassing if the students think too fast for you, and have to slow down and explain the train of thought in a conversation, eh?
HTH
If there is indeed an individual right of equal protection under the law, why would you want to put up for majority vote any policy outcome.
Those matters should be left to the courts -- our wisest minds (sorry to hurt you academics who have already made your own conclusions) to decide.
If you take this power out of the highest court's hands to analyze in the future because some homosexual law professor today thinks he knows the "correct" answer and there's no reason for a court to look at the matter, that would be a shame.
His legal opinion might count as double here because he's the token gay, but most of us would leave it up to the Court to analyze. I didn't buy his testimony on DOMA either -- that it was unnecessary because of course everybody already knows there's no right to gay marriage. He spun precedent one way there, but of course the issue can be identified and analyzed differently. (See Lawrence)
Best to leave the Constitution alone, be patient, and let SCOTUS decide when the case eventually comes before it. Either you trust in the system, or you don't. And if you don't, let's start putting all the hot-button issues of tomorrow up for a majority amendment vote today. That is what Thompson is suggesting. (I do understand you've committed here to spin for a candidate though.)
Gary Anderson:
This post, taken from one of your comments on this thread, addressed to Prof Adler, and which is relevant to nothing above it, is indicative of your obsession.
Your comments about Israel are so venomous and over the top (even compared to the other stuff you write) that they seem to indicate more than a dislike for Israeli policy.
As you say,
You clearly are not one of them. And "Jew" is not a derogatory word. You don't need to use asterisks.
I do apologize, but we're finally getting into the nitty gritty. You don't have to answer, but this would be valuable to me if you could answer:
Does a similar committment toward states rights' over individual rights that some still believe are guaranteed in the Constitution extend to other civil rights?
More bluntly, would you have been comfortable back then allowing states to decide if their hotels and restaurants would serve Negroes (before the Commerce clause saved the day) and passing a amendment stating that no federal law such as the Civil Rights Act could be passed that the states would have to accept?
Would have been willing to trump the court process on other civil rights issues? Or is your trust in Carpenter's interpretation that this is a family law/states matter over and individual's right to equal protection so strong that you know better than all future justices to come, who might interpret precedent differently, yet have their hands tied by the majority amendment to extend these protections to gays throughout the 50 states?
Again, I hope we both live long enough, and that when it happens, you are big enough to admit your arrogance today. You're looking in the wrong place, and Carpenter's interpretation is off. And I don't mind if when the decision comes down, opponents or even "supporters" like you and Carpenter who do the analysis differently cry "judicial activism".
But JOOOOS, which you introduced to the thread, is.
If you think my words venemous, say so without the slur. If you believe this, This post, taken from one of your comments on this thread, addressed to Prof Adler, and which is relevant to nothing above it, is indicative of your obsession. then say it the first time.
Introducing slurs and namecalling like J**S that you attribute to others takes the conversation down a notch. And some of us want to discuss without wallowing in the mud.
But when you start playing the "you called me a name because you're obsessed" card, then don't bother following up with the "censor theyself" comment. It won't work, whether you're black, Jewish, female, gay, or white seeking pity by slurring yourself.
which is relevant to nothing above it,
Did you forget right above you had accused me of being obsessed with the JOOOOOOS? You insulted me on behalf of youself, and you got the same in return based on ethnicity. Don't play the J****S card, and then make it off limits to others to respond.
Some people are pbsessed by Jooos.
I think Borat pretty much played that card out. Though I do wonder -- is such whininess inborn, or are y'all still angry and rebelling from when they cut your pee-pee because they identified you early on as J**S? I image that sexual numbness msut be gratified in other ways -- and calling yourself names and attributing it to others must really excite some of you's to the point of stimulation, the way you continually try to work that one in. Sorry, Borat beat you to the movie -- exposing anti-Semitism by belitting the tribe. Throw yourselves down the damned well if you like, but don't go accusing others when nobody tries to stop you and you do hit rock bottom.
Passing a constitutional amendment involves much more than simply getting a majority vote. I wouldn't support the proposed amendment, which I think has basically zero chance of passing, and I wouldn't support one that enshrined racial discrimination either. But that doesn't mean I would shut down or belittle the amendment process. I have much more faith in it than I do in the relatively mercurial will of the Court.
It's a pander-bear issue, and most politicians by now know it.
I have much more faith in it than I do in the relatively mercurial will of the Court.
I suspect you'd feel differently if you were in the minority. Particularly a non-elite homosexual living in a socially conservative state who has no intentions of moving to the cities.
Oh, and constitutional amendments are passed by supermajority, not majority vote.