With the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the conservative movement has within its grasp the prize it has sought for more than 40 years: the control of all levers of the federal government.Perhaps it's quibbling on my part, but I don't reckon that the goal has been to achieve control of "all levers" of the federal government. On the other hand, we need to get the federal government out of the social engineering racket, not to mention that we also need to cure it of the notion that it exists to micromanage economic activity. And how else are we going to do that until we get people in power who understand the proper limits of that power? Indeed, how will we restore individual freedom to its proper level if we are led (and reported to) by people who use the analogy of "levers" for the branches of government? I know, I know, I'm nit-picking, or close to it. And certainly I don't want to place too much weight on this. It's a minor point, admittedly. But I think that there's a fundamental difference between thinking of the government as something that either makes things go or is there to move ideas and people and money and what-have-you about - and thinking of it as something established to protect our rights, our lives, our persons, our property, our freedom. Just a thought.
From the ashes of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, conservatives have built an enduring governing majority, with Republicans winning seven of 10 presidential contests and holding unified control of Congress for 11 years.
The judiciary has until now been alone in clinging to liberalism and the remnants of the Democratic New Deal coalition...
Having said that, I suggest that you read the Edsall/Milbank article. The cynical part of my nature thinks that they might be painting bull's-eyes on specific conservative's backs here. The less cynical part of my nature thanks them for letting me know who's considered key right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment