A Limited Democracy

from Kevin Williamson at National Review, Revolution by Shenanigan:

The American constitutional order is a blend of democratic and undemocratic institutions, a result of the compromises that were necessary to create one nation out of 13 very different colonies, with different economic and political interests, different cultures, different religious habits — the genuine diversity of 18th-century American life. We have a federal system in which the states and U.S. government exercise a kind of dual sovereignty, with the states remaining powers in their own right rather than mere administrative subdivisions of the national state. The status of the states is reflected in the Senate, where each state enjoys equal representation regardless of population, and in institutions such as the Electoral College. Other antidemocratic measures in our constitutional order include judicial review and, most important, the Bill of Rights, which are constraints on the powers of temporary democratic majorities.

When he wasn’t monkeying around with the filibuster, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid, now retired, had his eye on the Bill of Rights. When the Supreme Court said for the umpteenth time that Congress cannot impose censorship on political critics, even if it calls that censorship “campaign finance reform,” Reid led an effort — supported by every single Democrat in the Senate — to repeal the First Amendment. Of course, he didn’t say that’s what he was doing, but a First Amendment that doesn’t protect political speech from government control is not a First Amendment.

 



Selective Free Speech

In today’s WSJ Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment by Theodore Olson

Excerpt:

The critics also ignore that Citizens United and McCutcheon make it easier for the unions on which the Democrats rely to spend money on elections. Unions outspent businesses by more than 2 to 1 in 2013. If money corrupts, then one would expect Mr. Reid and his colleagues to condemn the “corrupt” influence of unions in politics. And these Democrats presumably would brand liberal billionaire Tom Steyer’s pledge to commit his political-action committee to spend $100 million to defeat Republicans in 2014 as especially corrupting—but Mr. Reid has instead welcomed the support.

Democrats claim that the Supreme Court has made politicians and political parties less accountable by encouraging donations involving outside interest groups. Outside of what? Democrat fundraising circles? Their actual fear is that less traditional candidates—including outsiders—will have the funding necessary to challenge incumbents in primaries without the blessing of party elders.

It hardly enhances democracy to pine for the days when candidates were chosen by party bosses in secret, rather than by voters presented with candidates expressing a range of political viewpoints. If Democrats are concerned about the vitality of political parties when contending with outside groups, then Democrats should embraceMcCutcheon, which enables citizens to increase contributions to parties.

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

Let’s all pay attention to Kennedy’s words and drop this foolishness.

 



Jonah on Reid

from Reid his Lips by Jonah Goldberg at National Review

Still, it seems to me this is a useful way to think about the coverage of Harry Reid (I haven’t read Kevin Williamson’s cover story about Reid in the new issue, but I will. Oh yes, I will). The man is a national and institutional disgrace (Reid, not Williamson, lest their was some understandable confusion). He gets away not only with lies but with slander. The political press generally agrees with his ends, and so they can muster only so much outrage about his means. Republicans get in trouble for far milder examples of dishonesty (real or alleged) because the press is horrified by Republican ends and they consider it their job to nitpick any statements that might persuade people Republicans are right. Democrats are held to a lower standard because the press is confident their heart is in the right place. Truth-squadding takes passion, and the mainstream media’s passion only goes in one direction.



Fighting the Natural Progress of Liberty

Charles Koch writes in The Wall Street Journal- I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society:

Excerpts:

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

HKO

The more I read and learn about the Koch brothers the more I like, and the more I detest the vile demonizations from the likes of Harry Reid and his ilk, who are so intellectually bankrupt that all they can muster is personal attacks on the people who actually create the wealth he tries so hard to destroy.



Harry Reid

Harry Reid is corrupt