And they come with no warning,
nature loves her little surprises.
Continual crisis!

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

If I was an ol' rabbit I'd run too.

I've really been trying to avoid posting on the politics. Although, I know some of you read other blog I read and comment on as well. You may have noticed one of my refrains these days is "And the whackaloon quotient goes up." There's a lot going on in the world and in the politics of this country that I disagree with. Not so much from seemly benign intent of individual actions, but the culmination of many actions.

Take for instance the gaining popularity of "Strict Consitutionalism." That we should read the Constitution as the Founders originally intended. Thing is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Many of those who are proponents are "small government" and "less regulation" types. Thing is, we tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Weak central government, states rights, no taxes, pretty much what the strict Constitutionalists want. Unfortunately it didn't work. Which is why we now have the Constitution. But here's something interesting. There's a part of the Constitution which caused great consternation, Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3. The first sentence of which was the subject of a later Amendment. That sentence, of course, is the one about counting the people, other than Free People, at three fifths a person.

The Amendment that changed that sentence? Why that would be the 14th Amendment. You know, the one those same Strict Constitutionalists want to roll back. In the name of self defense, of course. (And, as an aside here, I also feel the call to repeal "birth right citizenship" is a nod to the birthers. You might remember the whole thing about Obama's birth certificate and that his father was Kenyan. "Louie Gohmert, white courtesy phone, Louie Gohmert, white courtesy phone.")

And many people support that on those concepts because they have no idea what is really going on.

See, many years ago Ronald Reagan gave the first speech after his nomination at the Neshoba County Fair. Which is just down the road from Philadelphia, Mississippi. His speech was about "States' Rights." Sound familiar. Yeah, that's another of the calling cards of the Strict Constitutionalists, states' rights.

Which is also what was cited by the Confederacy States for breaking away from the Union. You might remember that we had a little war over that. Said war redefined the Constitution and how we read it, and also brought about the 14th Amendment (also the 13th, to be fair).

You might want to read that wiki about the Neshoba County Fair speech. Now, I'm not saying that everybody that spouts this stuff believes in the same things. However, most people in public office have a very big interest in history, both making it and knowing the past. Which is why there is the controversy around Reagan's speech. And yes, Reagan knew exactly what he was saying and where he was saying it. You may remember that before Obama, Reagan was considered the president in recent memory who gave the best speeches. Those people in positions of power, current politicians and former (disgraced) politicians who are attempting to stage a comeback, are very well aware of what they are implying and who they're implying it to.

Welcome to the new Southern Strategy.

Now, some can believe in all of the above, Strict Constitutionalism, repealing the 14th Amendment (which has more than just the "birth right citizenship" clause, some of which are pretty interesting and thought provoking), and States' Rights because they honestly believe it will be better for everybody. There are also those who fly the Confederate Battle Flag because of the honor and tradition of the soldiers of the Confederacy. But they are the vast minority and have put blinders on to avoid all the other baggage that flag comes with and what it means today.


Anonymous said...

Change the 14th Amendment? Are these people crazy?

Anonymous Cassie, catching up

Steve Buchheit said...

Well, they're not crazy, or at least the politicians aren't (for the most part, Louie Gohmert is certifiable). Their pandering get votes proposing something that has no chance of happening. And both sides are using it (just like both sides are using the "Ground Zero Mosque"). Especially those who are in tight races in nominally conservative districts.

Harry Reid, I'm looking at you. Of course, he's in a race with another certifiable and can't seem to get more than 5 points ahead. That doesn't excuse his position on the 14th (and he's just talking about "maybe we should talk about"). Of course, as we've all heard, Harry doesn't qualify for the first point on "Strict Constitutionalist."

And it's not that the individual positions aren't plausible or defendable. When they hit on all of them, like a politician's bingo game, I see the connections.

Sort of like Reagan's speech. In and of itself a speech on state's rights doesn't mean anything (many people support state's rights - they differ on what and how much). Speaking at the Neshoba County Fair doesn't mean much (lots of candidates give speeches there). However, starting your general election campaign there, giving a speech on state's rights, and talking about rollin' back programs, bingo! And, like I said, most politicians on that level know their history, know the context of what they're saying, and are very cognizant of how that's all portrayed (which is why Palin's interview in front of turkey's being slaughtered pretty much summed up her campaign).

Anonymous said...

Do not try to defend the idiots on my side for a change. Modifying the 14th amendment is tantamount to insane. How will we change the definition? What will be the long term consequences?

I tend not to attribute racism to these topics, but I'm at a loss to explain the philosophy behind this call. If it were truly compassion, we'd be saying "let the family stay together." Instead, we think they should split up? What kind of sense does that make?



Anonymous said...

And in the "Oh, snap" category:


Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, also notice it's the Democratic Party that's also correcting the issue once evidence is presented.

Anonymous said...

Yep, they are. That's a good thing. I never cared who did it, only that it's done and the responsible parties are dealt with. It's a very good thing that those Democratic Party leaders handle it.

Not a hint of sarcasm in there. This was a good thing that the did.

That the correction is made is the best thing, however.