There are a couple more in the Tribune today. One of them suggests that TEA partiers “should all be arrested.” I wonder if the writer actually believes this, or if he/she just put it down in a moment of passion, or if he/she realizes how horrifying it is that one could so casually suggest that hundreds of thousands of people be rounded up for their beliefs.
No doubt a lot of this stems from the Winters-TEA Party kerfuffle. Now, Winters is a great guy in my view, and I do not begrudge his use of colorful language and anecdote, which I think adds a little of the human element to an office whose prior interactions with the public might have been that of a marble statue at the Louvre.
Equally, the Great Falls TEA partiers have done much more than the moribund state GOP to energize people about issues, and — with apparently a single exception –they have shown nothing but the highest regard for the American flag. Moreover, they clearly understand the Constitution and the law of these United States a heck of a lot better than the letter-writer referred to above. They understand that disrespecting the flag is dishonorable, but they also understand that we are in a sorry situation when American politics reaches a point where a symbolic debate is elevated above issues of grave substance.
There are many, many pressing issues this country, this state, this city faces. Not among them, at least in my view, is an insufficient respect for the flag. Anyone who wants to make the flag their top priority, their only point of intersection with civil society, should ask themselves whether the founders cared more for the piece of cloth, or what it represented.
In the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the threat is always growing. Ronald Reagan’s policies led to a growing threat. The first Gulf War led to a growing threat. The election of Bill Clinton led to a growing threat. The Internet led to a growing threat. Sept. 11 led to a growing threat. The war in Iraq led to a growing threat. Is it any wonder that Obama’s presidency has, in the SPLC’s estimation, led to a growing threat?
Hate groups do exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the expressions of frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at so many Tea Party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is an entirely mainstream reaction to the sharply activist course the president and congressional leadership have taken. While the level of frustration is indeed a threat, it is a political threat. Ask Democrats running in this November’s elections.
I don’t suppose it’s a coincidence that a very slanted article from this week’s Newsweek relies, in part, on ‘data’ from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I read it this weekend and thought: “There’s no ‘there’ there. It’s just a narrative…”
Attack your neighbors…now that’s a winning strategy.
Several people have asked me my opinion of the decision of Carroll College to retract its grant of space for my April 14 constitutional lecture. The event was sponsored by the Carroll College Young Republicans and the local Tea Party organization. Because Carroll cancelled the event, it was moved at the last minute to a local hotel. Two different counts showed that nearly 300 people showed up. After my opening remarks I answered questions for about two hours.
Here is my perspective:
* Carroll is a private institution, and it can impose any speech policy it wants. Part of the right to private property is the right to do things with that property you or I might not agree with.
* Carroll’s policy requiring that speakers be vetted by all constituencies of the college before the speech if the speaker might create an “emotional” reaction is an interesting approach for an academic institution. It certainly contradicts accepted norms of academic freedom, particularly because it creates what sometimes is called a “heckler’s veto” – that is, any one who strongly disagrees with a speaker potentially can prevent others from hearing him. I understand that this is what happened in this case.
* Most colleges routinely entertain and encourage speakers with controversial points of view. Indeed, Carroll routinely invites speakers with controversial left-of-center points of view. Besides the end-of-life panel, Carroll will be hosting Senator Baucus to speak on health care next month.
* Even assuming Carroll’s policy made sense in the abstract, the application in this case did not. The public events that have led to emotion and confrontation were those in which members of Congress were speaking at town hall meetings to angry constituents. This was not that kind of event. It was a lecture and Q&A session by an academic on America’s Basic Law.
Because Carroll is a private rather than a public college, there are, and should be, no First Amendment issues here. It is, however, jarring that liberals should be arguing that speech should be shut down if it is too controversial. It was not so long ago that they preferred to cite the immortal words of one of their icons, Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in Terminiello v. Chicago:
“A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment. . . “
I attended the Tea Party event in Great Falls. I took a number of pictures, only to find that they were all black when I returned home. I don’t know if I have a busted camera, whether the lens cover apparatus failed, or what, but none of them turned out. I knew I should have take my wife’s good camera instead of the little pocket Canon. Dang it.
As you may suspect, crashtheteaparty.org was not created by a Republican or an independent, but instead by someone with a red-tinted sickle to grind. In this instance, the suspect appears to be a conspiratorial 36-year-old from the Pacific Northwest named Jason Levin. He started promoting the site on April 8 on his personal Twitter account, but failed to do an adequate job of covering up his personal information when he registered the domain five days earlier. He later attempted to cover his tracks, but the original information was quickly disseminated around the internet by those who wondered who was behind the group.When contacted by Pajamas Media, Levin confirmed his involvement in the effort, stating, “Our stated intentions, or ‘manifesto’ as some of the conservative bloggers have called it is absolutely sincere.” He claimed to have operatives in tea party groups in every major city.
Levin concluded with a taunt: “Good luck stopping us. See you on 4/15.”
[...]
He is a middle school technology teacher who isn’t impressed by his students or his current job. He promotes a Firefighters for 911 truth site, which establishes his own conspiratorial bona fides as a truther. He indulges in his dislike of Republicans in general and in Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck in particular. Predictably, he doesn’t like Fox News. Other tweets on Mr. Levin’s page indicate that he is pro-ObamaCare and loves Keith Olbermann. Interestingly enough, he claims to not be a Democrat — presumably, his views are further to the left.
Many years ago, when I lived in Chicago, there was a contentious primary election between Richard Daley and a couple of other very popular Democrats. I recall an acquaintance who worked for a large, influential, union local with strong affiliations to Daley had been sent by union bosses to start a fight at a Daley campaign event and pose as a supporter of one of his competitors – thereby demonstrating that the opposition camp was supported by thugs. It worked. They created a fight, got thrown in jail, and made the nightly news for a week. They were bailed out with personal money from the union bosses and their legal expenses covered by the same. The legal upshot was that they were all convicted of a misdemeanor of disturbing the peace and got off with time served; a single night in Cook County Jail and a small fine. It was all premeditated.
The Tea Party activist who flew an inverted flag raising a flap with Mayor Winters (which is now resolved, by the way), expressed his point of view in the Tribune today:
Tea party participant explains, defends flag flying
By KEITH OCHS
I am a military veteran with 29½ years’ active duty.
I have received some e-mails asking (1) whether as the state’s constitutional law professor, Attorney-General Bullock or his office consulted me before making its decision and (2) what my own view is.
The answer to (1) is “no,” I was not consulted – and the decision not to do so is the A-G’s prerogative.
The answer to (2) is that, yes, I would have counseled signing onto the joint lawsuit (or bringing a separate suit, if he had reservations about the joint one). In fact, the implications of the health care bill for the state are so grave, I find it hard to understand why it should not be challenged. I’ve given the following partial response to the Bullock decision:
“I do not agree with Mr. Bullock’s reasons, nor with his conclusions. For one thing, as an engaged constitutional scholar I think the statement that ‘This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues’ is probably not true. And even if it were true, it should not be controlling.
“It is true, of course, that legal scholars are divided over whether the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence will uphold this law. They also are divided as to how certain key justices are likely to rule. But a division is not the ‘vast majority of legal scholars.’
“Even if it could be demonstrated that, say, 80% of legal scholars thought the bill wholly constitutional, this would not be a decisive reason against bringing suit. It is well-known in the legal academy that the “vast majority of legal scholars” are well to the Left of the Supreme Court majority that will be deciding this issue. Moreover, law professors in particular are notorious for subordinating their scholarly objectivity to whatever case they want to make. Law professors, unlike some other academics, usually do not write from an objective point of view, but to advance a case. Indeed, this is a longstanding dispute I have with most of my profession, since I believe we would be better to emulate the more objective standards that prevail in other academic fields. Law professors who write one article after another constructing theories about why the courts should be more liberal are not going to give an honest assessment of the constitutionality of this bill.
“There is also the point that some of the bill may pass muster under modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, while other parts do not. For example, most of spending provisions are likely to be upheld. But the constitutionality of mandates such as those in the bill has never been tested, and would seem to be at odds with at least one formulation of federal power issued by the modern Supreme Court. Similarly, there is a respectable argument that some of the financial penalties imposed are ”direct taxes” of the kind that require apportionment among the states. Whether the challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions will prevail, I do not know. But the arguments against them are eminently respectable, and should be raised.
“Further: Considering the welfare of the people of Montana, I would not make the same decision Mr. Bullock has made. In addition to the costs of this legislation to individuals, it will ultimately have severe consequences both to the state treasury and to the state-federal constitutional balance. Under those circumstances, it would seem to me that the A-G has an obligation to raise any tenable legal arguments, even if he thought defeat on a particular issue more probable than victory.”
People who ask the Montana A-G to join the constitutional lawsuit against Obamacare are getting a form response. This is it:
“Thanks for expressing your concerns about the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation.
“We have reviewed the legal arguments that are being used to challenge the legislation, and have concluded that it is highly unlikely it will be found unconstitutional. This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues. As a result, Montana will not be joining the lawsuit that several state Attorneys General have brought.
“People can certainly disagree over whether the health care legislation is good policy. That does not mean, however, that the State of Montana should spend taxpayer money to file a lawsuit that we do not believe has legal merit. Like the Republican and Democratic Montana Attorneys General who served before me, I try hard to keep my personal political beliefs out of legal decisions.
“My staff and I are busy and working hard to protect the interests of Montanans. The courts will have the opportunity to judge the merits of the challenges to the health care legislation without the involvement of Montana. If we are correct and the courts reject the challenges, we will have saved valuable Montana taxpayer resources. In the unlikely event that the Courts declare the legislation unconstitutional, their decision will apply to all Americans – including all Montanans – even though we weren’t a party to the lawsuit.”
“. . . it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.”
– Judge Robert Yates, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention (warning in Dec. 1787 under the pseudonym “Brutus” of consequences if federal powers were too broadly interpreted)
I have resigned myself to the passage of the job-killing, cost increasing, innovation stifling, deficit expanding, p.o.s. legislation known as “health care reform.” Of course I will be eligible immediately for a share of government largess since I have two kids who are over 18, under 26 and not currently in school. Since we’re insured though my wife’s group policy, which doesn’t charge more for a family of three than a family of 100 my kids can drop their current insurance and help further the burden of taxpayers in the Missoula County Public School District. Not that we will but the government will provide us the incentive to do so. And since the decision isn’t really mine – as the primary beneficiary is my apolitical spouse – those two kids may just get the dental care (including orthodontics) that they have been wanting. I’m sure it will be reflected in a rate increase next January as well as other teachers figure this out.
But let’s say the bill passes and won’t be repealed (which is my default position.) What do I really think will be the upshot? I don’t think it will be of everything good in America. It will surly kill off much innovation while the national tab for heath care will continue to increase at a pace that far exceeds inflation. We’ll muddle through simply because moving to a more socialist social contract doesn’t (immediately) kill the economy. It just makes it constipated and slows economic growth and, thus, the overall increase in the standard of living.
I watched the president make a number of his permanent campaign speeches over the month and we will know him as a liar in 20 years. In fact we’ll know it as soon as congress takes up the doctor fix that was negotiated with the AMA a year ago. What is most repugnant is the obscene level of logrolling and the duping of the American public by budgetary gaming of the CBO. All of it supports the call for term limits.
I’m much less optimistic that some that the GOP will take over either chamber in November than many of my Republican friends are. The GOP may be showing well in the polls now but they have a long way to go to make the public believe that they’re not just another color of scum that the current majority is. The good news is that the public seems to understand to a better degree that trusting either party is for fools.
I’ve come to the conclusion that our political economy will become increasingly inefficient. Unlike our European counterparts, our central government has a much more disparate and disbursed number of micro-economies to manage and we’re seeing increasing diseconomies of scale as we try to put in policies that are as good for New York and California as they are for Montana and Mississippi. I think this bolsters the argument for more robust federalism and I believe that it’s the only path to a more effective form of government.
Looking for a silver lining, I’m encouraged by the law suites that will be filed as soon as this bill is passed by Virginia, Florida and Idaho. Obama and his congressional leadership may well finally put to test the constraints on the Federal government originally envisioned in the 10th Amendment. One can hope even if the waxing of Justice Kennedy’s ideological much could prove my “ought” is different than our “is.” Libertarian optimism sometimes knows no bounds.
At the end of the day, and I know that some here will have a hard time believing this, I am now much more cynical about government now than I was a year ago. I know that’s hard to fathom but it’s true. The only thing that assuages that is the fact that we’ve seen a very vocal protest from middle America who seems to be waking up to the fact that the weight of the Leviathan is making the legs of the system starting to buckle. Let’s hope enough of them wake up in time to stop this insanity before the system collapses.
I’ve written before about the global megatrend since the 1980s toward smaller government and free markets and about the corresponding, and more recent, shift to the right in elections around the world. (The trend is driven by global changes in technology, information, trade, demographics, and other factors.) Since my last contribution on the subject, we’ve had additional confirmation in the center-right victory in Chile the other day and in yesterday’s upset in Massachusetts.
Two things are particularly significant about the Massachusetts upset: First, along with GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia, it represents a blunting of the United States’ counter-trend — we had been moving toward statism while most of the world moved the other way.
Second, even in very liberal Massachusetts, the biggest cause of Brown’s election was revulsion against the Democrats’ signature issues of national health care and heavy social spending. It is a safe bet that most Bay Staters were not aware that their feelings were part of a megatrend. Rather, like most voters these days they felt a vague sense of uneasiness about centralized “solutions” – a feeling that programs like national health care just don’t make economic and social sense for them in today’s world.
This uneasiness was certainly justified in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth’s celebrated government health care program has driven up costs much more than the national average.
The GOP is successful for the moment, but will remain so only if it understands that its temporary good fortune is the result of something larger than political party. If the GOP does not deliver on promises to give people a truly smaller, more modern government, it will go the way of Canada’s Progressive Conservatives, who in the 1990s were virtually wiped out by the rise of the relatively libertarian Reform Party.
Over at H&R Matt Welch talks about that Census worker’s “murder” that Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and all the other “haters” from the Tea Party movement caused. He’s waiting for mea culpas:
