The Case for Partisan Bickering
Lynn Wooley, in The Dallas Morning News, makes the case for partisan bickering. He argues that the founding fathers set this country up with three branches of government, two houses of Congress, judicial review, checks and balances, all in order to make it difficult to pass laws. According to Wooley, the founding fathers did this because of their contempt for government:
"The more laws Congress passes, the more miserable we all are likely to be. The federal government has a unique ability to mess up almost anything it touches, with the exception of our great fighting forces. Our founding fathers knew that. That's why they made it so hard to get things done."
Nice theory. Too bad it's wrong. If the founding fathers had so much contempt for federal government, they had an easy option -- no federal government at all, just thirteen independent countries. That they didn't try this option disposes of Wooley's warped view of American history.
In fact, the founding fathers had great respect for federal government. The checks and balances they imposed were not to incapacitate government, but to ensure compromise. The Constitution itself is the world's greatest example of the good that can come from compromise. It is built article by article on compromise -- compromise between north and south, between big state and little, between urban and rural interests.
Wooley considers compromise to be a dirty word. He explains his attitude towards political opponents as, "I don't want to compromise with them. I want to defeat them." Wooley hypocritically publishes his column praising gridlock just as Democrats regain control of Congress and look likely to regain control of the White House. His understanding of history is not only warped, it's self-serving, too.
If the founding fathers could work through their deep differences and reach consensus on a constitution, it ought to be possible for today's politicians to work through our differences on health care, social security, global warming, illegal immigration, etc. Lynn Wooley exemplifies how far we have fallen from the principles held by our founding fathers. Ben Franklin famously said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." His next words, not recorded by history, were probably something like, "Stop the partisan bickering, and get something done!"
Huckabee Tap Dances Through the Bible
Jeffrey Weiss, on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, points out, without editorial comment, that Mike Huckabee is trying to put "context" around his "amend the Constitution for God" comments.
Huckabee is tap dancing without lessons.
He creates a straw man for his anti-abortion argument. He claims others want to have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in society. He doesn't address the fundamental disagreement over when a human life begins. That's an issue that the Constitution doesn't explicitly settle. Neither does the Bible, for that matter.
He says the Bible was not written to be amended by each generation. Then why do we have so many books of the Bible, written over hundreds of years? Why was a New Testament needed? Why is there a book of Mormon? Besides, so what? Why should the United States Constitution have to align with the religious laws of the ancient Jews anyway?
He draws the line at amending the Constitution at just these two amendments: abortion and marriage. He says it's OK for the Constitution to not match Biblical tithing laws. Why? He doesn't offer a rationale. Maybe he just doesn't want to go where his reasoning would take him. It won't take him to the White House, that's for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment