Conservative vs. Republican

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. – Ayn Rand

I profess, at the outset, to being a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. I don't feel any strong affinity or loyalty to the party; just a kind of "common identification" with the basic philosophy. The delicious irony is it is an organization made up of confirmed individualists. In that context, there probably isn't even a party platform, because that would require consensus, and individualists are parsimonious with their saluting of anything.

If there were a party platform it would be pretty simple, like repealing 90% of all laws, eliminating 90% of all bureacracies, and installing (for a change) a constitutional form of government.

Politicos today don't talk much about that. No, they talk about higher or lower funding of this bunch or that group, without even stopping to consider the absolute need. It's useful to see how we got this way. The government was founded on Federalist principles. That is, an expressly limited government. It was confusing enough in the 1780's when the so-called Federalist Party wound up supporting big government, and it took the Democratic-Republicans to finally win that battle (see this historical treatment).

Unfortunately, the war has gone poorly since then. It does appear that the modern day version of big government, the Democrat party is getting hammered the way the Federalist party did in the 1810's; only for us to to find now that the Republican Party is embracing all the big brother-inspired evil that folks didn't like about the Dems.

Let's examine the term "conservative". If by conservative you mean resistant to change; that can be said about both major parties. If however it means what it meant when the term applied to Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and Ronald Reagan, it means something completely different.

Anyway, adopting the idea that limited government is still the domain of the so-called conservatives, then they have a common objective with libertarians and Libertarians, at least on the economic and political sides.

There is a very sharp divide at the moment between conservatives and Republicans. The opportunity does not exist for the Democrats, however. That is, unless the Dems somehow start a total retool and become the party of smaller government. Then we'll see a Federalist Party-like meltdown of the Republicans. Now THAT would be fun to watch.

Supreme Court as Playground

"Ms. Miers has not been a judge, but I regard that as a strength, not a weakness." --Harry Reid, D-Nevada

"I know her well enough to say that she's not going to change; 20 years from now, she will be the same person with the same philosophy as today." -- George W. Bush

"the worst damn-fool mistake I made as president." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower on his appointment of Earl Warren as CJOTSCOTUS

It floored me when I learned of Miers nomination. Not so much because it was her, but because of who was extolling her virtues. Harry Reid. I was hoping to hear about a nominee that Harry hated. Then I could be pretty sure that the nominee at least wasn't a communist. Likewise, I would want someone that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and their friends hate. Instead, I'm hearing that Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, and Rusty Limbaugh have a problem with this.

I didn't say much here about the Roberts nomination, but I am now marvelling at how the same president nominated both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Bush-41 was one for two in his appointments, perhaps Bush-43 wanted to share that legacy too. Roberts could become the only real accomplishment of Bush's tenure (and that is all in the hands of Roberts now) but that possibility is amplified by the contrast between the two.

For a president who is wrong more often than he is right (recall: Social Security Privatization, Patriot Act, Immigration Amnesty), I suppose that we should feel lucky with one out of two. It just seems too much like the schoolyard playground situation where you need someone for right field, and so you pick your buddy because you don't know the other players.