Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktJames Taranto, in his Best of the Web column yesterday, highlights Bernie Sanders’ Saving American Democracy (SAD) amendment to the constitution.
Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
Taranto points out, and it seems correct to me, that if this amendment were ratified, section 1 would deny corporations of literally all constitutional protections. As Taranto puts it:
Among other things, that would mean that the government (federal or state) could subject such entities to bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, impose criminal or civil penalties on them without due process, search their premises without a warrant and seize their property without compensation.
And despite section 2’s clause limiting any potential legislation against corporate acitivty to being consistent with “freedom of the press”, it seems to me the amendment itself would, by its language, eliminate freedom of the press for any corporate media outlet. Afterall, if “the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations”, that means that, for example, neither the NYT, nor the WaPo, nor FOXNews is protected by the first amendment’s right to freedom of the press.
Granted this amendment has virtually no chance of ever getting passed and ratfied. But I am curious to hear what our resident lawyers have to say about this attempt by Sanders to seemingly eliminate freedom of the press as we know it.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
He included a freedom of the press exception in section 2.As written his proposal is sloppy, but I am not against legislation or an amendment to delineate what rights & priveleges are reserved for the people vs those extended to legal entities.
LikeLike
Poorly conceived. However, I think the specific protection of "freedom of the press" trumps the general denial of constitutional protection.A less "ambitious" amendment could be drafted.
LikeLike
It is idiotic, moronic, ludicrous, absurd, stupid–pick your extreme adjective.The economy of the United States would likely collapse as a result, since business entities would have no rights. Goodbye property, due process, etc. You are correct that the press carve-out appears to be a nullity on the face of this nonsolution to a nonproblem. In the alternative, if we supposed that SCOTUS interpreted Sec 2 to exempt "press" activities of corporations, then people would just find ways around it, if a coherent distinction could be made at all. The evil Koch brothers could just set up their own press operation, for example.Sanders is dumb.
LikeLike
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.This seems to me like an open door (at least the recent National Defense Authorization Act wasn't a constitutional amendment) to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights based on their affiliation with a given group or corporation. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.This seems awkward, to me. And what freedoms will be limited that are not specifically protected? And why is the press given special dispensation of protection in the amendment, while no other freedoms enjoyed by other groups or companies are so enshrined? Shouldn't they also protect independent mail carriers "right to ship"?
LikeLike
bsimon:He included a freedom of the press exception in section 2Yes, but as I said that is protection against future legislation from congress, not the amendment itself. The amendment itself seems to quite explicitly eliminate any freedom of the press for corporate entities.
LikeLike
The economy of the United States would likely collapse as a result, since business entities would have no rightsQB us typically blunt, but the moment I read that, it seems self-evidently true. Under that amendment, corporations have no rights–no rights to property, enter into contracts, sue for redress, etc. That seems like an awfully ill-considered proposal.
LikeLike
*qb is typically blunt, I should say.
LikeLike
Mark:However, I think the specific protection of "freedom of the press" trumps the general denial of constitutional protection.How does that work? It seems the very purpose of the proposed amendment is to proclaim that constitutional rights do not apply to corporations. That being the case, how could a judge justify allowing one particular right to "trump" the expressed wishes of the amendment where others did not (were it to become law, obviously)? Wouldn't such a decision be simply arbitrary, saying this right trumps the new amendment, but that right does not?
LikeLike
I pretty much agree with QB. I'm not sure this is even a good idea to begin with, actually I'm pretty sure it isn't, but even if it is, the idea is so poorly executed that it creates problems far more heinous than the ones it seeks to remedy.
LikeLike
QB us typically bluntSorry, but I've just been in blunt and impatient mood lately.Under that amendment, corporations have no rights–no rights to property, enter into contractsContract rights are an interesting question here. When this was "debated" at PL, based on knee-jerk assertions that corporations are "not people" and have "no rights," I always tried to point out that this would mean that corporations would instantly lose all property and contract rights. It would mean they could no longer enforce or even make contracts. Nor could anyone make contracts with them. (Think about that.) They also could not be sued in court, since they are not people.In short, the result would be a complete economic meltdown, and this is not hyperbole or speculation. You could count on the stock market disappearing overnight. Dow Zero.Sanders' amendment appears designed to "limit" the stripping of rights to constitutional rights. The question of how this would affect contract rights is an interesting one that is not as immediately clear as, say speech and due process. But, lacking personhood under the Constitution, at a minimum I think corporations could not have access to federal courts to protect any contract rights that might survive. So Sanders' amendment is no less thoughtless and dumb than a blanket "no rights" amendment.
LikeLike
Scott,Taking the liberty of trying to answer your question to Mark, the argument would probably be something like this:We apply a rule of contruction that tries to give effect to all parts of a statutory or constitutional text. Here, if the amendment is construed to eliminate a corporate right to freedom of press, then Sec 2 is a nullity. We assume that its drafters, however, intended it to have some effect, and the only way that we can reconcile the clauses is that Sec 2 was intended to exclude freedom of press from the abolition of rights in Sec 1. Or something like that. It is a poor piece of drafting, since there are much clearer and more direct ways to say that. But I suspect that one reason it is drafted in this eliptical and ambiguous way is that, admitting that you can't reasonably propose to abolish freedom of the press for corporations raises a lot of difficult questions about how you can reasonably eliminate freedom of speech or other rights.Indeed, preserving freedom of press seems to be contrary to the very purpose of the amenment. Freedom of the corporate press "imbalances" public discourse much worse than mere corporate "speech." And how could Sanders explain why "press" is necessary when "speech" is evil?
LikeLike
I would love to believe there was some way to get some of the monetary influence out of politics but this seems like a stretch to me.
LikeLike
FWIW, as bad as this statute is, limited liability entities are creatures of the states and one can imagine that the rights granted to them by states would continue, quite generally unaffected.LMS, it is completely unnecessary to have this "Amendment" to nullify "Citizens United".An amendment that simply limited corporate political contributions would do that. I would not be for that amendment, btw.
LikeLike
Mark, what about limiting all political contributions? It makes me kind of sick to my stomach to think that someone needs a billion dollars to run for President. And it's also so obvious that money buys influence much more than our votes that it hardly seems worth voting anymore.
LikeLike
"An amendment that simply limited corporate political contributions would do that. I would not be for that amendment, btw"Mark, I assume you meant expenditures, since that was the issue in CU?
LikeLike
"Mark, what about limiting all political contributions?"How would you stop "bundling?"
LikeLike
I don't know the answers McWing. I just think it's really unfortunate that so many of our elections are awash in millions of dollars. I like endorsements that are straight forward and center on policy but it's a pipe dream I know. There must be some way to do campaign finance reform that would be fair to all sides and enable someone to run for office without the necessity of spending all their time fund raising and bending over backwards to meet the obligations they've created. I think it's a distortion of the political process.
LikeLike
I think money has had the same level of influence in American elections since, well, Washington. Do you think there was a time when money had less influence in elections?
LikeLike
lms:There must be some way to do campaign finance reform that would be fair to all sides and enable someone to run for office without the necessity of spending all their time fund raising and bending over backwards to meet the obligations they've created. There is. Severely limit what the government is involved in, and the amount of money involved in elections will limit itself. When lots of money hinges on what the government decides to do, then lots of money will be used to determine who is in government making those decisions. There is a reason it doesn't cost much to run for the local dog-catcher. Nothing is at stake.
LikeLike
qb:Thanks for the explanation. I thought Mark was suggesting that the first amendment would trump the new amendment, but now I see he is saying that clause 2 would trump clause 1. Still, it seems a totally unworkable mess to me.I believe this amendment has 3 other co-sponsors besides Sanders. It's doesn't seem to reflect well on any of them that this is the best they could come up with, wholly apart from the questionable judgment displayed in wanting to limit the freedom of speech of all corporations except media corporations.
LikeLike
Scott, I don't buy it. Like I've said before you're wishing for a libertarian utopian fantasy. It won't happen so I think while we could certainly shrink the Federal and State government somewhat without going off the rails and turning into a winner takes all society, we have to deal with reality. Wishing and waiting doesn't really get us anywhere. And I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's both conservatives and liberals who have grown the government and in some cases it's exactly because of outside influence.BTW, have you noticed that Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the R candidate. He thinks he's the only guy in the race who makes sense and while he's still voting for Obama he believes it would be the best race for the country because of the integrity and honesty of his positions.
LikeLike
lms:Like I've said before you're wishing for a libertarian utopian fantasy.I wasn't wishing for anything. I was telling you what it would take to realize your utopian fantasy of elections sans money.It won't happen…Probably not. I guess you and I are both destined to be disappointed.BTW, have you noticed that Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the R candidate.No. I haven't paid any attention to Sullivan for several years. He thinks he's the only guy in the race who makes sense and while he's still voting for Obama he believes it would be the best race for the country because of the integrity and honesty of his positions.If he thinks Ron Paul makes sense, he can't possibly think Obama does.
LikeLike
I wasn't necessarily advocating NO money in politics, just not such huge sums which seem to obligate candidates in what appear to be back room type deals. It's all so shady to me. You're right though it is a fantasy and I'm doomed to disappointment.I think Sullivan means he makes sense for conservatives and that the debate between Obama and Paul would be distinctive, informative and not so filled with political posturing and propaganda. He even likes Pauls ads so far. I just thought it was interesting. Sullivan's obviously not a libertarian but he is an economic moderate and has some love for entitlement reform, reform of the Fed and less military intervention. He thinks Paul is at least true to his values and beliefs, although some of his past associations raise his hackles. BTW, I didn't say I agreed with Sully, just thought you might find it interesting because he picked Ron Paul as the best R candidate. He really liked Huntsman but doesn't see a snowballs chance of that.
LikeLike
After a quick review, I don't see where any rights or privileges are currently granted to corporations in the constitution. What rights are specifically granted seem to be to citizens or people, not legal entities (the third refers to 'the owner's' right to not be required to house soldiers). Yet some pretty clearly apply only to human beings, like natural born citizenship, right to vote, etcetera. The right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure is specifically granted to the people. So by what law or laws are some rights granted to corporations?
LikeLike
bsimon:After a quick review, I don't see where any rights or privileges are currently granted to corporations in the constitution.So, then, presumably you view Sanders' amendment as entirely redundant and unnecessary.But obviously the question is not really whether the constitution specifically grants corporations rights or protections. The question is whether people who choose to form and act under the name of a corporation retain constitutional rights or protections when they do so.
LikeLike
lms:I think Sullivan means he makes sense for conservativesHow would Sullivan know? 😉and that the debate between Obama and Paul would be distinctive, informative and not so filled with political posturing and propaganda.That couldn't possibly be true of any event which included Obama. Seriously.
LikeLike
How would Sullivan know? 😉There's an awful lot of moderate conservatives floating around out there that you guys seem to abhor. I don't really get it but okay. I guess an endorsement of some sort based on honesty and integrity and libertarian/conservative values just isn't good if it comes from a disgraced someone. You guys seem to think you're much more complicated that you really are.Maybe you'd prefer the Gingrich/Obama debate?BTW, I might as well just link the Sullivan piece.
LikeLike
lms:There's an awful lot of moderate conservatives floating around out there that you guys seem to abhor.I don't "abhor" anyone. Not even progressives.I guess an endorsement of some sort based on honesty and integrity and libertarian/conservative values just isn't good if it comes from a disgraced someone. Has Sully been "disgraced"? In any event, Sully's endorsements are not worth anything to me, disgraced or not. It's hard to take seriously an endorsement supposedly based on integrity and honesty coming from someone who ultimately endorses Obama.
LikeLike
lms:Maybe you'd prefer the Gingrich/Obama debate?As you may know, I am not particularly interested in presidential debates, but I confess that that one would grab my attention.You guys seem to think you're much more complicated that you really are.I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think I am very complicated at all. Would that the rest of the world was as uncomplicated as me.
LikeLike
There's an awful lot of moderate conservatives floating around out there that you guys seem to abhor.Second Scott. I don't abhor anyone (was not a fan of Bin Ladin, I admit), but Sullivan is not a standard-bearer for conservatism. His Trig Trutherism puts him in the same category as Donald Trump and his Big Hair Birtherism. As I've noted, I'd vote for Ron Paul over most of the current crop of GOP hopefuls and Obama, but I don't think Sullivan's endorsement is particularly helpful or relevant. Ron Paul is always going to have issue with most conservatives who want a Big Stick FP–Ron Paul doesn't have a foreign policy, per se, and it remains a weakness. If Ron Paul is still in the primaries when Tennessee has it's primary, I'll vote for him. Sully's endorsement not withstanding. You guys seem to think you're much more complicated that you really are.Nothing complicated about truth, justice, and the American way. And a love of liberty. Simple as baseball, hot dogs, and Mom's apple pie. 😉
LikeLike
Nothing complicated about truth, justice, and the American way. And a love of liberty. Simple as baseball, hot dogs, and Mom's apple pie. 😉Except for the hot dogs, me too. I guess I won't bring up Sullivan again but at least you answered Scott's disgraced question for me. The only reason I brought it up was because I found it interesting and somewhat surprising, no big deal.As far as conservatives thinking they're complicated, I'd just finished reading some of scott's conversation with Nathaniel so that and some of qb's comments leave me with that impression. Most of the time they're not saying anything much different than my dad and his friends used to say 45 years ago.
LikeLike
lms:Most of the time they're not saying anything much different than my dad and his friends used to say 45 years ago.Your dad must have been a wise and uncomplicated man.BTW…do you fancy yourself and/or other progressives as saying anything much different than what progressives were saying 45 years ago?
LikeLike
BTW…do you fancy yourself and/or other progressives as saying anything much different than what progressives were saying 45 years ago?People eat, breathe, sleep, and mate much as they have for hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of years. Many of the principals of our current philosophies were articulated 100, 200 hundred, 500 hundred, 1000, and 3000 (or so) years ago. There's not a lot new under the sun. We will be fighting some form of these battles a thousand years from now, I expect.
LikeLike
ScottI've mellowed somewhat, but that's about it. And my dad and I had our last big political argument in a pre-op cubbyhole while he was waiting for a biopsy for pancreatic cancer. I finally said maybe we could just agree to disagree at long last………and we did. We had a lot of respect for each other and learned tolerance along the way. Our biggest arguments came during the Vietnam era and he gave up on me for quite a few years while I was a young newlywed, college grad and mother. He eventually understood my positions, even reluctantly agreeing with some of them, and regretted missing out on so much of my life. As a matter of fact, a propos of absolutely nothing, I believe it was probably his greatest regret. My experiences with my father are one of the reasons I like to keep the communication lines open between liberals and conservatives and why the Plumline became unbearable to me, for what it's worth.
LikeLike
lms:I've mellowed somewhat, but that's about it.I didn't mean to wonder if you had changed your own positions over time. I was referring to your characterization of me and qb as "uncomplicated" because we are making the same kinds of arguments that our conservative predecessors made. My point was simply that pretty much anyone could be characterized in such a way, no? Most political arguments, when reduced to their fundamentals, are pretty timeless and have been well rehearsed in the past. I'm not quite sure what the purpose was in pointing it out with regard to qb and I.
LikeLike
scottIt appears to me that sometimes you and other conservatives believe those of us on the other side of the fence don't understand your arguments and positions rather than just disagree with them, as if we're incapable of understanding. I don't necessarily mean me personally and I wasn't trying to insult you guys, it's just an impression I have, that's all. I agree with both you and Kevin that in essence they're age old arguments with little twists and turns along the way.
LikeLike
lmsinca: I will state, without a doubt, that despite the general simplicity of the conservative (or liberal, or libertarian, or progressive) position, that there are folks on both sides that have a very superficial understanding of the arguments of their opposite number, if any at all. I could list a whole bunch of lefties over at PlumLine that I don't think understand conservative arguments. I don't think that's a problem with the folks over here. I think there are some issues about which it's difficult for us to communicate salient points to one another–but that's a different thing that completely misunderstanding the conservative or liberal position on issues. I think even very smart folks can completely misunderstand something. It doesn't mean that they aren't smart, or that what their misunderstanding isn't imminently understandable, even if you disagree with it. Just that they don't understand it. Full disclosure: while never a radical lefty, I considered myself a liberal in my misspent youth. Apparently, having been blessed with a center-right temperament, part of maintaing my liberalism (for me) was misunderstanding conservatism and conservative arguments. I want to be clear that this is not to say that if only people properly understood conservative arguments, then everybody would be conservative–only that this was the case for me, and I get the impression that with many people, and important part of their self-image relies on not really understanding, or empathizing with, their opposite number. Spend some time trawling through the comments and Ace of Spades or Red State or pick your right-wing blog, and I expect you will get a sense that there is a very shallow understanding of liberal arguments, from your point of view.
LikeLike
Way deep in the Sullivan endorsement is this paragraph which pretty much sums up my current political thinking:I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing recovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conserving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society. I see a role for government where Paul doesn't.I also whole-heartedly endorse his final paragraph.
LikeLike
I thought that corporations didn't gain any rights at all until the income tax was instituted, and they were then granted only so corps could be taxed.It should have stopped there. Corps are not people. Freedom of the press? Again, corps are not people, and as such should have no opinion; therefore, they should not be participating in any voting process; they are made up of people, who do have opinions, and do vote. And it needs to end there.We do (unfortunately) have lobbyists, and of course a corp could lobby for this, that, or the other, but that also should be limited (regulated) so that no one has more lobby power than any other. If you can't state your case without influence peddling (bribes), then you have no case.Yellowjkt: I like that paragraph too.
LikeLike
I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize,There is a lot of potential immoderate, non-conservatism in "amend" and "reform". Without caveats, I find that sentence contradictory. Universal healthcare is simply not a conservative position. Period. There are arguments for it, but none of them are conservative. The idea of government support for a flailing recovery is understandable, but also not conservative, as a conservative suspects even with good intentions, the government lacks sufficient prescience and capability to manipulate the economy into solid performance with centrally-managed stimulus (or unmanaged slush funds). I don't particularly care, one way or the other, about marriage equality–other than I think it's inevitable and fighting it is a waste of time. I certainly back marijuana legalization, but this a more libertarian than conservative position. But conservatism is not defined as Sullivan or George W. Bush might define it–huge government, pervasive and invasive, in all aspects of our lives–except where we don't like it, then, in those places (and only those places) government should "get out of the way". The Clinton administration, which got the government out of the tea tasting business, if nothing else, represents a more conservative form of government than what Sullivan is talking about.I also see a role for government where Paul doesn't. But even this: I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy simply isn't conservative. That is, the "massive public investment" part simply isn't a conservative position, because most conservatives don't see a role for government in creating new markets (or competing with private market solutions), nor do they think the government is capable to centrally plan a superior solution to what hundreds or hundreds of thousands of smart people, competing with each other, will come up with. It's like if I said: "As a liberal, I favor huge tax cuts for the rich, because I believe they are good people and will do the right thing with the money–because I believe in people, and believe they should be free to choose. Also, as a liberal, I respect and honor the bounty of nature–including the massive oil reserves in ANWR. I also respect the technology, innovation, and jobs for working class Americans that drilling in ANWR represents. So, as a liberal, I say: drill, baby, drill!"
LikeLike
" presumably you view Sanders' amendment as entirely redundant and unnecessary."Presumptions are much like assumptions.I'm trying to learn something before leaping to a conclusion. You might try it sometime.
LikeLike
" I also see a role for government where Paul doesn't. But even this: I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy simply isn't conservative."Isn't it this lack of a grayscale precisely what is driving moderates out of the party?
LikeLike
bsimon:Presumptions are much like assumptions.Yes…a reasonable and often times necessary tool when when trying to understand what other people are saying. You might try it sometime.Not quite sure what prompted such a reply, but rest assured I do it all the time.
LikeLike
yello:Way deep in the Sullivan endorsement is this paragraph which pretty much sums up my current political thinkingWhat kind of serious austerity do you propose, once we recover? BTW…do you really consider yourself a "Tory" and a "conservative"?
LikeLike
Isn't it this lack of a grayscale precisely what is driving moderates out of the party?"conservative" and "Republican" are not synonymous.Generally, the position he takes would be considered the liberal position. There may be some cross over, but while I may be a conservative who believes in a more progressive tax structure, I'm not going to try and characterize that position as being the "true" conservative position. It's area where my general philosophy parts ways with current conservatism and classical conservatism both, as does Sullivan's position in regards to massive public investment in non-carbon energy. I'm both a big fan of investment in non-carbon energy and space exploration, and until such time as such things can be convincingly tackled by private industry, I'm going to support some government funding of such things, but that's not a conservative position. And I wouldn't try to characterize it as one. There are so many things he could tackle–such as the government overreach of The Patriot Act or the National Defense Authorization that could legitimately be said, "As a conservative, I believe this government overreach, these powers to, without accountability or explanation, indefinitely detail American citizens–I cannot support such unambiguous violations of individual rights and our American heritage." Or something like that. Universal healthcare is not something you support "as a conservative", In my opinion. That's something you support (as with my support of more progressive taxation) in spite of being a conservative, not "as".Or at least, that's my opinion.
LikeLike
kevin:It's like if I said: "As a liberal, I favor huge tax cuts for the rich, because I believe they are good people and will do the right thing with the money–because I believe in people, and believe they should be free to choose. Also, as a liberal, I respect and honor the bounty of nature–including the massive oil reserves in ANWR. I also respect the technology, innovation, and jobs for working class Americans that drilling in ANWR represents. So, as a liberal, I say: drill, baby, drill!"Absolutely. Well said.I find it very interesting when liberals try to frame their liberalism as conservatism. Have you ever seen a conservative trying to sell conservative notions as "progressive" or liberal? Not sure I have, but I have seen lots of liberals try to convince others that their policies are in reality born of a deep-seated conservatism.
LikeLike
Scott; BTW…do you really consider yourself a "Tory" and a "conservative"?Sullivan's definition of a Tory and a conservative sound libertarian-left (libertarian on social issues, liberal on fp and many economic issues). I imagine lots of liberals can see themselves as that sort of "conservative". 😉 What kind of serious austerity do you propose, once we recover? I mean to comment on Sullivan's belief that recoveries should be met with austerity. I don't disagree (although how we can possibly have austerity with universal healthcare and massive funding of non-carbon energy, I don't know), but it's a utopian notion. The government grows in economic boom times, it doesn't trim. A significant economic recovery might end stimulus programs, but budgets would expand across the public sector, not shrink. There would be no austerity in boom times. What politician is ever going to do that? Things are going great, so I'm going to strangle public services! Because I don't ever want to be elected to public office again.
LikeLike
bsimon:Isn't it this lack of a grayscale precisely what is driving moderates out of the party? Are moderates really being driven out of the party? And doesn't pretty much everyone who leaves one party for another end up claiming that the party has moved in an extreme direction away from their own professed moderateness? "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." That is pretty standard fare for anyone who abandons their party, isn't it?
LikeLike
"Not sure I have, but I have seen lots of liberals try to convince others that their policies are in reality born of a deep-seated conservatism."The one that comes immediately to mind is the concept that universal healthcare, provided by government, is pro-business.
LikeLike
kevin:I don't disagree (although how we can possibly have austerity with universal healthcare and massive funding of non-carbon energy, I don't know), but it's a utopian notion. The government grows in economic boom times, it doesn't trim.Quite right. But even more relevant to my question, do liberals (not necessarily politicians, but liberals) ever actually call for serious government austerity, whether in good times or bad? Yes, they may call for less spending on defense or some other program, but pretty much inevitably it is so that the money can be "invested" by government somewhere else.
LikeLike
I find it very interesting when liberals try to frame their liberalism as conservatism. Have you ever seen a conservative trying to sell conservative notions as "progressive" or liberal?I think it's a matter of context. 41% of people self-identify as conservative, 21% as liberal. If those numbers were reversed, I think you'd see more folks trying to shoe-horn their conservatism into a liberal suit. But folks like Sullivan and Frum are a different bird–folks who were, I think, legitimately more conservative and perhaps more libertarian a decade ago. Perhaps never happy with the evangelical right or Ann Coulter, their surrounding and environment (and perhaps significant others) have helped enlighten them, and instead of accepting that they've moved to the left on certain issue (or they now care more about issues where their positions have always been left of center), they want to redefine conservatism as being their specific set of issues, left, right, and center, rather than defining themselves as being a hodge-podge. However, the left has no trouble identifying attempts to reclaim liberalism or progressivism by moderates. They were highly critical of 3rd way Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council.
LikeLike
Just off the top of my head I think you guys may have missed the point of Sullivan's piece. He's not claiming to be a conservative, I mean he said he's voting for Obama anyway, he's just making the point that Ron Paul would be a good candidate for conservatives even though he leans more Libertarian in some respects. People change their opinions frequently depending on the political climate. I used to be more moderate than I am now, but the way things are going I'm being pulled to the left.
LikeLike
" Universal healthcare is not something you support "as a conservative", In my opinion. That's something you support (as with my support of more progressive taxation) in spite of being a conservative, not "as"."Doesn't that depend on what universal healthcare means? Certainly I can understand a conservative argument against government-provided healthcare for all. But if universal healthcare merely means everyone is covered, why would the default conservative position be against that?
LikeLike
Troll McWingnut: As I recall, the ACA was conservative because Republicans proposed it as an alternative to the Marxist central-planning of Clintoncare back in the 1990s. However, it wasn't conservative when the Republicans proposed it (the few that did), anyway. It wasn't turning 1/7th of the economy into a Communist enterprise, but it wasn't conservative. It wasn't conservative when Nixon tried to get it done, and Ted Kennedy (bless you, Ted) stood in the way.
LikeLike
bsimon:But if universal healthcare merely means everyone is covered, why would the default conservative position be against that?Of course taken literally, it wouldn't be. But "universl healthcare" is, (forgive me) universally understood to refer to government direction at some level and in some way, and pretty much necessarily in a big way.
LikeLike
" The one that comes immediately to mind is the concept that universal healthcare, provided by government, is pro-business."In a non ideological observation, it makes zero sense to me that the default source for healthcare is one's employer. My employer is not in the healthcare business, but maintains a staff to manage employees' healthcare benefits. Its a ridiculous system.
LikeLike
But if universal healthcare merely means everyone is covered, why would the default conservative position be against that?A) I'm pretty sure Sullivan is not advocating for some fantastical form of Universal Healthcare where the government is not involved. B) I don't imagine there is a system where, when coverage is left up to the individual, that everybody is covered. Although I suppose there is a point where technology makes cures to most ailments cost pennies, at which point universal healthcare is a no-brainer, because anybody can afford it, because curing cancer (and everything else) costs as much as a cup of coffee. In the current environment, as Universal Healthcare as generally understood (government involvement, either as single payer or punitive mandater), I don't think that's a conservative position. It's a liberal position, and a fine one it is. 😉
LikeLike
bsimon:In a non ideological observation, it makes zero sense to me that the default source for healthcare is one's employer. I agree. It only begins to make sense because of income taxation and the tax treatment that health benefits receive. That is, quite literally, the only reason that insurance in the US is related to employment.
LikeLike
" But "universl healthcare" is, (forgive me) universally understood to refer to government direction at some level and in some way, and pretty much necessarily in a big way."I don't mean it personally, but that excuse amounts to quitting without trying. Given public support for universal healthcare & some kind of strategy to lower costs without lowering quality of care, conservatives would be smart to question their assumptions about whether universal healthcare can be achieved without big gov't.
LikeLike
My employer is not in the healthcare business, but maintains a staff to manage employees' healthcare benefits. Its a ridiculous system.It is. Isn't this usually blamed on government wage controls during WWII?
LikeLike
" That is, quite literally, the only reason that insurance in the US is related to employment."I think the insurance industry also has a vested interest in the status quo because managing a small number of large clients is cheaper than serving a bunch of individuals.
LikeLike
I don't mean it personally, but that excuse amounts to quitting without trying. Given public support for universal healthcare & some kind of strategy to lower costs without lowering quality of care, conservatives would be smart to question their assumptions about whether universal healthcare can be achieved without big gov't.Fair enough, and please note, I'm not at all opposed to Universal Healthcare. I personally believe it won't truly be possible until technology advances in such ways that good fundamental healthcare is much less expensive, but I'm not opposed to talking about other strategies. I always thought a Medicare expansion or buy-in made sense.
LikeLike
bsimon:I think the insurance industry also has a vested interest in the status quo because managing a small number of large clients is cheaper than serving a bunch of individuals. That would still be possible, and would likely be happening, outside of employer provided insurance if the tax laws were different. Any organization with a significant number of members (a country club, a political party, literally any group) could organize to negotiate insurance terms on behalf its members as a whole risk group. The reason it coalesced around employers is that, because of tax laws (and wage controls, as KW mentioned) employers were incented to offer insurance in lieu of cash compensation. And employees were incented to accept it. Hence the growth of our system.Naturally, it's the government's fault.
LikeLike
"Naturally, it's the government's fault."Perhaps. But also consider that this misguided tax policy has spawned an enormously large & lucrative industry in addition to postponing implementation of the inevitable gov't run, single payer healthcare system.
LikeLike
bsimon:in addition to postponing implementation of the inevitable gov't run, single payer healthcare systemThis idea seems to stand in contrast to what you just said above, ie questioning the assumption that universal coverage can be achieved in the absensce of big government.
LikeLike
"lucrative industry in addition to postponing implementation of the inevitable gov't run, single payer healthcare system."The lucrative industry would exist without government taxi incentives, and further, it's kind of a "broken window" fallacy. Also, if healthcare isn't a right , why is a government run single payer system inevitable or even necessary?
LikeLike
" This idea seems to stand in contrast to what you just said above, ie questioning the assumption that universal coverage can be achieved in the absensce of big government."I'm mixing what I think the approach should be with what I expect the final outcome will be. I am not keen for gov't run healthcare. But, if the largest pools have the lowest per-subscriber cost, it seems that we'll inevitably all choose to be in the same pool, except those who can pay out of pocket for any conceivable expense.
LikeLike
"I f healthcare isn't a right , why is a government run single payer system inevitable or even necessary?"The healthcare as a right or moral obligation isn't a very interesting argument, IMO. Instead I view a healthy workforce / populace as a critical component to maximizing efficiency. As our collective health improves, so does our productivity – whether for schoolchildren or the workforce. That benefits all of us, therefore we all have an interest in universal healthcare at the lowest possible cost.
LikeLike
Health care is a universal NEED as opposed to a universal want.A healthy employee pool is more productive.Healthy old people help the employee pool be more productive because the employee pool does not have to take care of sick old folks.Healthy children do better in school and help the employee pool be more productive because the employee pool does not have to take care of sick kids.Health care was relatively affordable when I was growing up on the farm. I doubt that Dr. Hardy charged my folks $100 for electropaddling me back to life when I drowned.Health care is still affordable for the minor care issues; in fact, pharmacies are modeling minor care clinics that are direct pay.NoVAH has told us a lot about what can be done to lower the cost of major care, which includes educating old folks like me in the use of living wills so that we do not prolong the agony at the end of life.These costs can be saved in any system. But clinic care works better than hospital ERs, results based care is cheaper than fee for service, having a copay keeps personal choice in the game, and the less price discrimination to the seller that is available the cheaper it will be for most buyers. Further, we need many more first providers with more authority than they have now. UK imported Pakistani docs and AMA won't let us do the same, but we will have to have many more nurse practitioners and EMTs and pharmacists giving innoculations, etc.It is my understanding that Japan's first foray into public health care expansion was funding nurses in elementary schools.Catching communicable disease at the source [in the kid world] saved much employee sick time. States and localities that returned to this funding practice should find some competitive advantage for local business.Abandoning the employer centric model is something bsimon and I have pushed since we first met at "The Fix". I do not think single payer is at all inevitable. I think the Swiss system probably is. And I think we do not eliminate price discrimination without nearly universal health care. NoVAH has posted references to these studies of other countries' insurance schemes and their health care delivery systems. Here, at this blog, the argument is what role should the FEDERAL government have, if any? That argument would be more focused if we generally agreed about what ought to be done outside the context of who should do it.
LikeLike