How a thoughtful conservative views the American left. (1 Viewer)

[Archies Ghost]

There is an extreme disconnect between what American leftists say they believe and what their actions betray as their true motivation.

Without a basic common belief in the foundation of this country and the Constitution that embodies that foundation, there really is no room for discussion.

We are seeing evidence of this here.

George Will put it very well today.

Unfortunately, however, O’Rourke, Warren, and Silver demonstrate the tendency of too many progressives to cut constitutional corners, to despise and bully adversaries, and to practice theatrical but selective indignation about attacks on fundamental American principles, some of which they themselves traduce. Just what we did not need in our dispiriting civic life — additional evidence that there really is no such thing as rock bottom.

Progressives Are All Too Willing to Cut Constitutional Corners | National Review

They despise and bully adversaries and practice theatrical but selective indignation about attacks on fundamental American principles.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[JimEverett]

I wrote what I meant as clearly as I can and think it's pretty easy to follow and quite self explanatory. I don't know how to make it any clearer or easier to understand.

It's not a "weird" argument just because someone doesn't agree with it or doesn't understand it.

Banning reporters from being paid is not the same as, or relevant, to placing spending restrictions on political donations and campaign spending. The answer to the question is still a resounding, no, it is not a violation of free speech or a free press.

There's a legitimate public interest served by restrictions on political speech spending. The Supreme court has repeatedly upheld that the government can restrict free speech in the interest of serving the public good. Therefore, even if one equates money with free speech, people do not have an absolute right to spend money on political speech completely free of government restrictions.

There's a strong argument that restricting the amount of money each individual and each organization can spend on political speech serves the public good, therefore the government has a right to restrict that free speech in that way.

There's also a strong argument that limiting campaign donations to biological people serves the public good, because it's the only way to truly have transparency and full disclosure of who is saying what. It serves the public good to not allow any political free speech to be anonymous free speech, if for no other reason to prevent foreign nations from anonymously interfering in our election process by using money.

This is off topic, so I'm no longer going to discuss this in this thread. I'll discuss it in it's own thread if someone starts one.

I am not sure if you don't understand what Citizen's United is about or you are just conflating the issue

Just stick to this argument/platitude that is so popular with so many: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. What does that mean? It strikes me as meaning you can prohibit/ban money from being used for speech without infringing on speech itself. How is that possible? Again, with the book example - it strikes me as a silly argument to say you can ban money being used to pay a writer, to print and publish and distribute a book, without essentially banning a book - infringing on speech is exactly what prohibiting money being used in the book publishing process will do.

Second, the Citizens United case was about the government banning the publication of a movie because of its political content. Talking about campaign donations is off-topic: corporate donations to campaigns is and has been illegal, Citizens United did nothing to change that.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I’m with you on this, though. I really don’t like the “the left” and “the right” labels (if you’ve noticed me put them in quotes before, this is why). It’s such a broad stroke of a label to apply, and I don’t think it’s fair to anyone to apply such a broad label based on (simplistically) who they vote for. We have several posters who are closer to conservative/Republican, but won’t back Trump so they get the “the left!” label from some*. Some programs we think of as “socialist left!!!” here are basically the center in other countries.

A slight aside to the OP, but I wanted to +1 your thoughts.

*edit: not necessarily here

The United States is, quite exceptionally, not other countries. That is what American exceptionalism is all about.

The foundation of this country, focused on the rights of the individual, is what is exceptional. No other country has quite managed to replicate that.

The social programs that are “center” in other countries do not magically gain legitimacy because of this.

In broad terms, the people predisposed to accept the immense responsibilities of individual freedom migrated from places that do not permit such freedom to the only place that did. Those left behind don’t mind the yoke so much because it brings the safety and security they desire over individual freedom and its attendant responsibilities.

Those seeking power find it much easier to persuade the sheep desiring a shepherd.

The origin of “social programs” belies the true purpose. As far back as Imperial Rome, government largesse has been used to influence the public attitude and provide the state with its primary tool of power, its military. Modern welfare and medical “social programs” trace their roots directly to Prussian attempts to maintain a numerous and fit pool of cannon fodder.

Now, these programs are focused on keeping the sheep in the flock.

The exceptional American experiment has reached a critical point. It has become the unchallenged dominant power post WWII. The four generations since the war have known little struggle and a generation that does not remember the Cold War has reach the age of what should be maturity.

Instead of celebrating and building a bulwark around what makes America exceptional, we are actively engaged in widespread attempts to de-legitimize the very things that have created the world we know and replace it with the death and destruction we also know must follow.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The United States is, quite exceptionally, not other countries. That is what American exceptionalism is all about.

The foundation of this country, focused on the rights of the individual, is what is exceptional. No other country has quite managed to replicate that.

The social programs that are “center” in other countries do not magically gain legitimacy because of this.

In broad terms, the people predisposed to accept the immense responsibilities of individual freedom migrated from places that do not permit such freedom to the only place that did. Those left behind don’t mind the yoke so much because it brings the safety and security they desire over individual freedom and its attendant responsibilities.

Those seeking power find it much easier to persuade the sheep desiring a shepherd.

The origin of “social programs” belies the true purpose. As far back as Imperial Rome, government largesse has been used to influence the public attitude and provide the state with its primary tool of power, its military. Modern welfare and medical “social programs” trace their roots directly to Prussian attempts to maintain a numerous and fit pool of cannon fodder.

Now, these programs are focused on keeping the sheep in the flock.

The exceptional American experiment has reached a critical point. It has become the unchallenged dominant power post WWII. The four generations since the war have known little struggle and a generation that does not remember the Cold War has reach the age of what should be maturity.

Instead of celebrating and building a bulwark around what makes America exceptional, we are actively engaged in widespread attempts to de-legitimize the very things that have created the world we know and replace it with the death and destruction we also know must follow.

it's an interesting, though mostly inaccurate, mythos - that 'freedom' never applied to all people across the board
and even those it did apply to it was a lot of pomp but not as much circumstance -- mostly bc it is a highly impractical ideal, bc inevitably different people's freedoms will come into conflict and some system must then pick whose freedom wins

what is necessary is to strike that right balance between individual freedom and social cohesion

 

[Ayo]

it's an interesting, though mostly inaccurate, mythos - that 'freedom' never applied to all people across the board
and even those it did apply to it was a lot of pomp but not as much circumstance -- mostly bc it is a highly impractical ideal, bc inevitably different people's freedoms will come into conflict and some system must then pick whose freedom wins

what is necessary is to strike that right balance between individual freedom and social cohesion

it's a selective myopia. There are a lot of things that have made our country great and exceptional, but an unvarnished valorization actually hides a lot of things that - if corrected - would actually make our country even more legitimately 'great'

Great > Great for Some

 

[JRad]

it's a selective myopia. There are a lot of things that have made our country great and exceptional, but an unvarnished valorization actually hides a lot of things that - if corrected - would actually make our country even more legitimately 'great'

Great > Great for Some

If MAGA is really meant to Make American Great Again - to me, this implies America has been passed up, right? You're still great if you're #1. So why are we so resistant to ideas the other "big" countries have implemented to make themselves greater? America should be exceptional because America can do it better.

 

[V Chip]

Citizens United did nothing to change that.

That is extremely misleading.

The ruling on Citizens United overturned prior SC rulings on the ability to limit campaign donations and political spending.

The first, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, found that corporate money can unfairly influence elections. The majority opinion, voiced by Thurgood Marshall, read in part that "Michigan identified as a serious danger the significant possibility that corporate political expenditures will undermine the integrity of the political process, and it has implemented a narrowly tailored solution to that problem. By requiring corporations to make all independent political expenditures through a separate fund made up of money solicited expressly for political purposes, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act reduces the threat that huge corporate treasuries amassed with the aid of favorable state laws will be used to influence unfairly the outcome of elections." It said that there is a "different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas" and "the unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures. Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent expenditures, just as it can when it assumes the guise of political contributions. We therefore hold that the State has articulated a sufficiently compelling rationale to support its restriction on independent expenditures by corporations."

AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

The second, McConnell v. FEC, found that soft money can be regulated and that McCain-Feingold was constitutional. In the opinion, it was stated "[t]he governmental interest underlying §323(a)--preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders--constitutes a sufficiently important interest to justify contribution limits. That interest is not limited to the elimination of quid pro quo, cash-for-votes exchanges, see Buckley, supra, at 28, but extends also to "undue influence on an officeholder's judgment, and the appearance of such influence," Federal Election Comm'n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 441 (Colorado II). These interests are sufficient to justify not only contribution limits themselves, but also laws preventing the circumvention of such limits."

They also found "[t]he Government's strong interests in preventing corruption, and particularly its appearance, are thus sufficient to justify subjecting all donations to national parties to FECA's source, amount, and disclosure limitations."

The opinion summarized " Many years ago we observed that "[t]o say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard ... an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection." Burroughs v. United States, 290 U. S., at 545. We abide by that conviction in considering Congress' most recent effort to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system. We are under no illusion that BCRA will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day. In the main we uphold BCRA's two principal, complementary features: the control of soft money and the regulation of electioneering communications. "

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Both of these prior decisions were overturned by Citizens United. It's not solely about a film; that's being ridiculously disingenuous.

PAC and Super PAC spending exploded after the Citizens United ruling. Nearly everyone agrees now that PAC spending is so unregulated and unenforced that they're basically PAC in name only and are directly affected by the candidates/parties instead of supposedly remaining separate and having no coordination.

Overturning those two prior decisions is what makes Citizens United a horribly decided case. It's not about the movie -- the SC could have ruled in favor of the movie Citizens United without ignoring and overturning prior precedent set above. It went far beyond that, however, and that is why Citizens United is an extremely poor decision.

 

[JimEverett]

That is absolutely not true.

It certainly is true. Citizens United did nothing to allow corporations to donate to campaigns.

Citizens United did overturn the holding in Austin. And what was Austin about? It was about the Chamber of Commerce wanting to pay for an ad in a newspaper supporting a candidate. Just like Citizens United was most certainly about a film - in fact, that is exactly what it was about - the Austin case that it overturned was a case banning the publication of a newspaper advertisement.

 

[V Chip]

It certainly is true. Citizens United did nothing to allow corporations to donate to campaigns.

Citizens United did overturn the holding in Austin. And what was Austin about? It was about the Chamber of Commerce wanting to pay for an ad in a newspaper supporting a candidate. Just like Citizens United was most certainly about a film - in fact, that is exactly what it was about - the Austin case that it overturned was a case banning the publication of a newspaper advertisement.

I edited my post right after I made it but apparently not quickly enough.

It's entirely misleading.

Yes, it didn't do anything about allowing corporations to directly donate money to a specific campaign.

It absolutely did open the doors for unlimited soft money to pour into a PAC/SuperPAC.

 

[SystemShock]

There is an extreme disconnect between what American leftists say they believe and what their actions betray as their true motivation.

Without a basic common belief in the foundation of this country and the Constitution that embodies that foundation, there really is no room for discussion.

We are seeing evidence of this here.

George Will put it very well today.

Progressives Are All Too Willing to Cut Constitutional Corners | National Review

They despise and bully adversaries and practice theatrical but selective indignation about attacks on fundamental American principles.

www.nationalreview.com

Tragic what has happened to you, George Will.

Let's break this down...

Bullying adversaries
Come on, George... you very well know that has been a Republican trademark since Richard Nixon, going through Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Gingrich... and you are going to call Elizabeth Warren a bully? When you got Trump and McConnell and Miller and The Mooch? Come on, man!

Taxing churches.
Whether they allow gay marriage or not, churches should be taxed. Too many mega churches with pastors living in mansions with 2 swimming pools flying on their 2nd or 3rd or 4th private jet not paying taxes. Obviously not all churches are like that, but I think there has to be some sort of limit or standard as to how much money a church can generate and how they spend that money, before they all get tax exempt status. I don't see anything in the Constitution that says churches can't be taxed.

Taxing free speech
What's with the hyperbole, George? We all are very aware of the 1st Amendment and what it says... however, I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned a country in which wealthy special interests squash the will of the people because they can spend millions of dollars on bribes political campaigns in exchange for political favors/preference. Again, I don't see anything in the Constitution that says corporate lobbyists can't be taxed.

The NBA
Like you don't know this, George... The NBA is a corporation out to make money. To do business in the U.S. (or anywhere for that matter), not only do you have to abide by the laws of the U.S. (unless your lobby is really rich and powerful or you "know people") but you also have to navigate through the cultural waters, and be aware who your audience is. So, yes, they took away the NBA All-Star from Charlotte because transgender bathrooms were (are?) a hot topic, but ignore what happens in China because, overall, we don't give a hoot what happens in China. Not only we don't give a hoot about what happens in China, I believe the NBA's players and audience are more concerned with the rates and the why of incarceration of African Americans in the U.S. than they are with the rates and why of incarceration in China. I don't see you criticizing Trump for making his MAGA hats in China either.

Also, George: when you say "strong evidence", please show some of your work. Don't get me wrong, though: is not that I downright don't believe you; it is that I am skeptical of such claims, especially after the last time I took "strong evidence" at face value (and that one had slide decks and all) and it turned out to be false.

 

[JimEverett]

The Will piece works really well when considering the near universal disdain American liberals have of Citizens United (there are still some civil libertarians who approve of the case, the ACLU being a good example.)

The idea that the government should ban newspaper ads, movies, presumably books, articles, etc. due to the content of thse books and the entities publishing them seems to strike right at the heart of American democracy. I mean who is afraid of a newspaper ad?

 

[Archies Ghost]

it's an interesting, though mostly inaccurate, mythos - that 'freedom' never applied to all people across the board
and even those it did apply to it was a lot of pomp but not as much circumstance -- mostly bc it is a highly impractical ideal, bc inevitably different people's freedoms will come into conflict and some system must then pick whose freedom wins

what is necessary is to strike that right balance between individual freedom and social cohesion

The examples you speak of where freedom did not apply to everyone are the remnants of the societies now pointed to as those we should emulate.

You want to fix it by adopting the statist policies that created the problems in the first place.

I think this is a basic misunderstanding of individual freedom.

Individual freedom is not freedom from responsibility nor is it freedom from insult or discrimination.

Individual freedom is not protecting the rights of those who agree with the majority or the approved thinking of the state.

The United States was founded on the ideal of " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I do not think the founders believed the ideal existed nor that it could ever entirely exist but they were determined to set us on the path of striving towards that ideal.

And we have striven mightily, enduring multiple conflicts and a bloody civil war. We are in the midst of another conflict due to our own negligence. Internal forces are hard at work trying to destroy the framework of the greatest experiment man has undertaken.

Why? It seems mostly a short sighted power grab although there is some evidence of a longer term goal, a desire to replace the foundation of individual freedom with the failed social engineering from across the Atlantic, despite the overwhelming evidence of its inadequacy in the hands of mere humans.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We are in the midst of another conflict due to our own negligence. Internal forces are hard at work trying to destroy the framework of the greatest experiment man has undertaken.

Why? It seems mostly a short sighted power grab although there is some evidence of a longer term goal, a desire to replace the foundation of individual freedom with the failed social engineering from across the Atlantic, despite the overwhelming evidence of its inadequacy in the hands of mere humans.

I don't know what you are referring to here. I'd like to see what you see, so please be as specific as you can in answering these questions.

What exactly is the conflict?
Who's in conflict with whom?
What is our negligence?
Who are the internal forces?
What is the framework they are trying to destroy?
What are they doing to destroy it?
What power are they trying to grab?
What is the long term goal?
What's the evidence of the long term goal?
What individual freedoms are they trying to replace?
What failed social engineering polices from across the Atlantic are they trying to replace individual freedoms with?
What countries are those polices from?
How have those polices failed in those countries?
If mere human hands are inadequate for handling policies, then whose hands should policies be in?

I know it's a lot of questions, but you packed a lot into a rather short statement and I don't know what you are referring to, so I have don't know what you are saying.