Centerfield: He's a Liberal, I Don't Care

February 16, 2007

He's a Liberal, I Don't Care

There has been a lot of talk lately about who Barack Obama is. Let me make this easy, he is a liberal. Nothing more then a big government, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, soft on crime, pro-union, anti-business, left wing activist, whose heart bleeds so much that he became a community organizer instead of a millionaire. I could give a rat's ass.

Some have loved to point out that Obama is a politician. Thanks for that. They love to say he is only moving to the middle to run for President. I am blown away. In my opinion those folks miss the boat when they point out to us the painfully obvious and pass it off as intellect. I am still not bothered by Obama.

Those who either are supporting another Democrat, or a Republican, or are just cynical in nature, but certainly an asset to the debate, have pointed out that he did in fact inhale, that he smokes, that his travel costs are 45% more than any other Senator in his class, that he has a lot of big money donors, that his middle name is Hussein, that he has less experienced than the other serious candidates for President... Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care.

It isn't about the issues, it isn't about his political strategy, and it isn't about the background for many... Rather, it is about the approach, the big picture, the candidate that represents the kind of country we want are kids to grow up in. We haven't flocked to him because "he talks real purdy," we flock to him because we sense that he is telling the truth, we trust him, and he gets it. When he makes a mistake, he says it is a mistake. When he is asked about his past, he doesn't suger coat it with talking points such as "when I was young and dumb, I was young and dumb."

I am writing this because I want us to think about something here at Centerfield just once. Rather than poor over details that in the grand scheme of things don't amount to jack, I would like us to think 5 years down the road and not 5 minutes. What kind of personalilty best fits the Presidency at this point in our history? What kind of image do we want to present to the rest of the world? How do we want the President to communicate to the public, to foreign leaders, and to members of Congress both in and outside of his or her own party? In all of these areas most of us have not been please with the results over the past six years. Some of us have felt lied to, justfiably, and others feel like that the President of the United States does not represent the best of his own country. I'll be honest, I am having a hard time seeing why the answer to all of those questions is not Barack Obama, but I am truly interested in what you have to say.

Posted by Starbucks Republican at February 16, 2007 02:02 AM

Comments

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are saying is not that Obama is _the_ answer, but rather that he is _an_ apparently acceptable answer. Can't argue with that.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what develops. Not because I see a specific deal-breaker with Obama, because I don't -- possibly because I haven't looked terribly hard yet, of course. But because I figure the only way we are going to draw back, even slightly, from the perpetual campaign is if some of us make an effort not to rush to judgement more than 6 months ahead.

Not only might new people crop up in the next year plus. But the world will (on past performance) undergo a couple of substantial changes in that time. Even picking "what kind of a person do I want to be President" (vs. "what position on the issues do I insist my President have"), I'd like to know what the issues actually are as the election arrives. Rather than a couple of years out.

Posted by: wj at February 16, 2007 02:24 AM

I went to the Springfield announcement and the mass of 17,000 were feeling the same as me, aside from bone chilling cold. We knew this man is the right one. We know he is the one to lead. Sometimes you just feel it. Oh, he is really smart, has policy papers, legislation, ect. As a constitutional professor he could restore all the damage done by Shrub.
But, when it comes down to it, we are supporting the man just because we know.

Posted by: vwcat at February 16, 2007 08:12 AM

Those are all valid considerations to raise, valid criteria to use in deciding for whom to vote.

But I'm strongly opposed to, say, single-payer health care. That's a real issue, likely to come up in the next presidential term. No matter how open and honest and straight-forward Obama may be, he will support and push for single-payer health care. I oppose that, and so I'll likely vote against him.

Likewise, I think his position on Iraq is terrible and will weaken the country. I think his rhetoric and his voting record show that he will be terribly soft on defense.

His record shows remarkable verbal support for "reaching out" to the other political side. But it shows very little result of that "reaching out." It is talk, and talk only. Simon posted at Stubborn Facts about his voting record, as scored by both liberal and conservative groups. As I noted elsewhere, most actual moderate politicians manage to appear so in those voting record score cards. Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, these folks show up as neither liberal nor conservative when it comes to the actual votes they cast. Senator Obama, however, comes up as a highly partisan, ideological voter.

His actions, his votes, do not match his rhetoric, and that should worry you.

We don't separate out the Head of State and the Head of Government in our country. The president must actually do things, promote legislation, appoint judges. Senator Obama's past record strongly suggests that his actions in office will be consistently liberal. If you want to see those policies enacted, fine.

Me, I once fell for a presidential candidate who was a smooth talker, who said the right things, who looked good, who felt my pain. I won't make that mistake again.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 16, 2007 08:36 AM

What Pat said, and also:

we flock to him because we sense that he is telling the truth

How can you "sense" that he is telling the truth when he is plainly misrepresenting himself, measured against his own record? That isn't optimism or hope or faith, that is absolute self-delusion. For reasons that I neither understand nor have any inclination to understand, Mathew, you seem desperate to like Obama.

What kind of personalilty best fits the Presidency at this point in our history? What kind of image do we want to present to the rest of the world? How do we want the President to communicate to the public, to foreign leaders, and to members of Congress both in and outside of his or her own party? In all of these areas most of us have not been please with the results over the past six years.

Politics is a zero-sum game, and while I quite agree that Bush has been less than an ideal President, you don't cure cancer with a bullet to the head. It's important what kind of personality the President has, but their views on the issues within the ambit of the Presidency are as important if not more so, and even if Obama's actually quite level-headed and bluff, that doesn't change that his views are what they are, and his casual belittling of issues that (a) matter and (b) he agrees matter is profoundly silly.

Now, if you're actually a liberal, and you want someone to "restore all the damage done by Shrub" as a commenter above put it, then by all means, I can see how Obama would appeal to you. He's more charismatic than Hillary, and he's a dyed in the wool liberal yet he appears to be able to con the center into believing that he's one of them. As a candidate, he's the left's wet dream. As a possible President, I fear for our future.

(And don't tell me that he taught ConLaw, as if that means something. Sandy Levinson, who wants to flay the Constitution alive, teaches ConLaw!)

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 08:52 AM

I forgot to say in the previous post, a point I was going to make was that it's irrelevant what your views on Bush as a President have been, because he's not running! Even if you persuaded me that Obama was a better fit for the Presidency than Bush (and to be clear, I'm not persuaded of that), the relevant question isn't whether you prefer Obama or Bush, it's whether you prefer Obama or whomever the GOP puts on the ticket in '08. Obama doesn't represent the center, guys, he represents the left, and he will govern from it - and it's staggering that anyone who calls themselves a centrist would respond to that point by saying "Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care." Obama doesn't represent the "kind of country [I] want our kids to grow up in" because I encourage my son to be honest and I don't want this country to turn into something resembling West Germany at best and East Germany at worst, which is precisely what Obama and people like him would put us on a journey towards.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 09:01 AM

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether I am willing to cast a vote for any candidate who isn't willing to tell us all the things we don't want to hear about social security, medicaid, and medicare. Republicans largely won't entertain any notion of raising taxes to pay for these things because the people believe they deserve them in some form and that they are are right for our country. And democrats largely won't entertain any notion of making these programs any less generous or restrictive to bring them in line with what we can afford. As long as republicans insist tax hikes are off the table and democrats insist program cuts are off the table, the recipe calls for a stalemate where the federal government fiddles and later on we all burn. Most of us, anyway.

With Obama, that's most likely going to be my acid test. Will he show me both an urgency and an understanding of where any sort of feasible compromise must lie (some combination of both program changes and tax hikes that occur at the point where current revenues become insufficient to cover current liabilities)?

If he does't do that, then I say "Next!!"

Will he just tell us that we have to protect the little people by any means necessary? That's probably true, but IMO doesn't send a great signal... The signal I am looking for is one that transmits "I understand the math, and we have no choice but to plan accordingly. I do want to protect the little people, and we'll do everything we can to do that, but there will have to be some painful changes that not everyone will like."

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 09:33 AM

It seems to me that if you want to understand Obama's attraction as a candidate, watch The West Wing. He appears to be a Barlett/Santos-type of guy. And I don't think that Obama is any more liberal than John McCain is conservative, and I don't recall anyone around here suggesting that it would be irrational for a centrist to support McCain.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 16, 2007 10:12 AM

...whose heart bleeds so much that he became a community organizer instead of a millionaire...

As one who has definitely "pointed out the obvious" about Obama being a politican mouthing feel-good general platitudes while running for higher office, I would fully acknowledge that no one becomes a community organizer for riches*. But Obama IS a millionaire.

He parlayed the adulation and media attention of the 2004 Senatorial campaign into big bucks in very short order. He's doing the same again now for political capital.

You're essentially celebating charisma over substance, saying that charisma should count more than, even to the exclusion of, substance. Forgive us if we insist on poring over the details instead of worshipping an image. Words and images can and do lie, but actions speak much louder than words, and I'm gonna insist on judging Obama by his actions rather than his words.

But he sure do talk purty.

[*--And boy, don't I know it!]

Posted by: Tully at February 16, 2007 10:35 AM

Liberal doesn't mean a single-payer healthcare system. Liberal doesn't mean the garbage that Democrats threaten in Congress these days. Liberal is undergoing a struggle over definition. And some here are quite right, Obama talks middle, but has little centrism to point to beyond his image and stump speeches. Where is the center substance?

What was Obama's suggestion for North Korean negotiations? And of course, Liberal didn't used to mean the counter crap Democrats call foreign policy strategy these days. I have to agree with Pat with the exception that I prefer the mainstream Liberal of Clinton's era over the conservative agenda of the Bush error. Maybe Clinton counldn’t have done it without Newt, but many results were of the mainstream Liberal variety while the Far Left was Far away. I would rather Bill feel my pain than Bush and company make it worse. Only a conservative could imply Alaska was an energy solution, or that embryos are better flushed than studied.

Brian has it right too if you add a healthy dose of Hawkishness to the character required to be President these days. If Obama was as conciliatory as he makes out, he would be rethinking his Middle East policy right now and congratulating Bush for progress with NK. He would be denouncing countries that sell weapons to those shooting at our soldiers, or regimes that espouse hostility to member nations. For a realist, Obama has offered few realistic plans and refuses to join numerous centrists denouncing the Munich speech, Iran’s export of terror materials, the planned coup in Lebanon, or even for action in Darfur or Somalia. It used to be a Liberal staple to advocate Human Rights and object to nuclear power. There are degrees of Liberalness as there are degress of truthiness. I didn’t hear Obama even reject a litmus test for Democrats that forced Lieberman out.

So far it is talk and playing to the anti-war gallery. With all the recent exposure Obama has had, he certainly hasn't reached out to the other side. At least Clinton hasn’t apologized for her voting record. Most Democrat candidates seem like a reach to the far side. Instead or laying out centrist/liberal policies, Obama is issuing retractions for careless remarks. So far, not a particularly slick beginning.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 16, 2007 10:41 AM

Todd,
The American Conservative Union ranks politicians from 1 to 100 on their conservatism. To give you some benchmarks, Dick Durbin scores 7; Sam Brownback scores 95. The people we usually consider to be paradigmatic of moderates - Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe - have 53 and 50 respectively. The ACU gives John McCain has a lifetime rating of 83 and Obama 8; by the ACU's numbers, Obama deviates by 42 to the left; McCain by 33 to the right.

Americans for Democratic Action, the ACU's liberal counterpart, ranks politicians on a scale of one to one hundred percent for their "liberal quotient." Again, to benchmark, Dick Durbin has 100% and Sam Brownback has 5%; Olympia Snowe has 45% and Ben Nelson has 35%. Obama has 95%, McCain 15%. I'm going to split the difference and say the middle of the scale is 40%, halfway between our two paradigmatic moderate Senators. By that standard, Obama deviates to the left by 55%, McCain to the right by 25%.

It seems fairly obvious that - for better or worse - McCain is closer to the center than is Obama, by the most objective indicia available. When both the left and the right assess the data and produce numbers that put people we consider to be moderates in the middle and Obama way out on the liberal fringe, I'm inclined to give that evidence a lot of weight. And unlike Obama, I'm not aware that McCain - for all his faults - has disingenuously sought to cloak himself in the mantle of national unity as a front for asking the other side to lie down and die.

And in any event, even if Obama was actually no more liberal than McCain was conservative, I continue to deny symmetry:

[I reject the idea] that movement from the center in either direction is equally and symmetrically bad ... I'll take a moderate Republican over a moderate Democrat any day, and I'll certainly take a strong conservative over a strong liberal, but I won't necessarily take a moderate Democrat over a strong conservative. This isn't a symmetrical game. Sure, I have areas of policy on which I strongly disagree with the GOP party line, some of which happen to match up with the Democratic party's line. And as a matter of pure expediency, I think compromise can often be a virtue, a fortiori when it's an area on which I don't have a strong opinion either way but it means a lot to the other side that we go one way not the other. Ergo, I'm a moderate. But that doesn't mean I think that all ideas are equal (they are not).

All ideas are not equal.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 10:59 AM

I don't think John McCain is running around claiming to be a centrist, particularly. In fact, he's running to the right at the moment, sucking up to all the folks he crucified in the 2000 election.

And I'll have to go back and look more carefully at exactly what Simon said, but I don't think he said it would be irrational for a centrist to support Obama, just that it is irrational to believe that Obama is himself a centrist, if one takes "centrist" as defining an approach to policy as opposed to an approach to the tone by which our politicians conduct themselves.

As a liberal, Senator Obama is a good guy. I appreciate very much the fact that he generally avoids completely demonizing his opponents, that he voices support for working with the other side. I wish more of our politicians were like that. As Simon and I keep pointing out, there are real differences of opinion out there about how to resolve significant issues facing the country, and it's important that our political champions, while vigorously advocating for our side, remain polite and respectful of the dissenting points of view.

But the substance of the policies a politician is likely to promote is very important in making an informed voting choice. If you want a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, soft on crime, pro-union, anti-business, let wing bleeding heart activist as your president, then vote for Senator Obama, because that's what the evidence strongly suggests you will get. I don't support those policies (for the most part), so I'm not likely to vote for Senator Obama, no matter how much he claims to understand my position.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 16, 2007 11:08 AM

As Simon and I keep pointing out, there are real differences of opinion out there about how to resolve significant issues facing the country

Not only differences over how to resolve those significant issues, but there's even disagreement over what those problems are. If you ask Rush Limbaugh - privately and in confidence - to name the five most pressing issues facing America, in his view, I can practically guarantee you that it wouldn't be the same five that Tina Fey would tell you if you asked her privately and in confidence.

And to add to Pat's parade of horribles, even if I agreed with Obama on all of that, I still would need to be persuaded that he wasn't going to appoint the kind of judges and Justices that will participate in liberalism's ongoing war against the Constitution. And nothing in his record suggests otherwise (indeed, the bill he offered to halt the war, when it finally showed up, suggested a total incapacity to understand the respective powers of the President and Congress). Even if I agreed with a candidate on every other issue, my first obligation is to support the guy who is going to do the least damage to our system of government. For better or worse, that's usually going to be the Republican candidate.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 11:35 AM

Just to clarify, Simon, that was Starbuck Republican's (hi, M! hope your new job is going well) parade of horribles, not mine. I just copied them from his initial post.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 16, 2007 11:47 AM

The people we usually consider to be paradigmatic of moderates - Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe - have 53 and 50 respectively.

We being who? :-)

Americans for Democratic Action, the ACU's liberal counterpart, ranks politicians on a scale of one to one hundred percent for their "liberal quotient." ...Olympia Snowe has 45% and Ben Nelson has 35%. Obama has 95%, McCain 15%. I'm going to split the difference and say the middle of the scale is 40%, Halfway between our two paradigmatic moderate Senators. By that standard, Obama deviates to the left by 55%, McCain to the right by 25%.

It's quite reasonable to hypothesize from your citations that conservatives think Snowe and Nelson are more moderate than liberals do. So IMO your choice of "40" appears arbitrary.

Why even bother to construct a numerical proof to show that Obama is more liberal than McCain is conservative? It's much more reasonable, IMO, to assume that the rankings have use only in crafting a spectrum. 87 versus 13 tells you a lot, but 35 versus 45, not so much. IMO the numbers you cited support the notion that Obama is solidly liberal and McCain is solidly conservative. Arguing about which is moreso is a dance on the head of a pin.

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 12:16 PM

"If you want a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, soft on crime, pro-union, anti-business, let (Left-and this would not be Liberal))wing bleeding heart activist as your president, then vote for Senator Obama, because that's what the evidence strongly suggests you will get."

What a minute. Please explain how centrists do not advocate gun-control (assault rifles, automatic machine guns, armor piercing bullets). And please explain how universal coverage for the uninsured like Romney's program is also "not centrist". Then explain how the military's new take on gays (if they can fight, should they not wed?) doesn't move center, pro stem cell research, and the right to die are not all topics centrists agree with. I am beginning to sense a reason why so many here reject any "definition" of being a centrist. See what a lack of criteria has wrought?

Then you throw in anti-business and soft on crime. You will have to explain why Obama is SO anti-business and SO soft on crime. Many police organizations favor gun control and unions. Clinton was more a centrist than a Far Left Liberal. Yes? I think there is some painting here of Obama before he defines whether his policies will lean a bit to the middle or stretch into socialist land. His record and rhetoric does not prove that for me.

I am willing to let Obama evolve a bit. It is wrong to assume McCain is less conservative than Obama is Liberal. Shall I link McCain's comments over the last ten years (or voting record)? If Obama ends up being a "NEW Democrat" and moves to where I thought he was going to stand AND gets a grip on national security issues, then he may very well make a centrist claim.

We are seeing the following: Social conservatives were so extreme that moderation now looks like centrism. LOL On the other hand, what ends up as Obama's reformed plank may well follow Bill Clinton's amoeba tactics and actually trace what the majority of Americans centristly advocate on issues regarding healthcare reform, energy, environment, gun-control, medical research and gay rights. Anti-abortion is not a centrist position; today's abortion rights are. Republicans appear to be making 2008 about terror AND conservative v Liberal. This will only work if a. Democrats still stake out bad foreign strategic policy and events get better for the US b. Democrats go further Left instead of holding the middle. Time will tell and I think Democrats had better resist being polarized by the Right, which seeks to corner them into the extremities of Liberalism.

The conversation shows just how vulnerable the Republicans are, were the Democrats to wake up and move to the center. I doubt they will do that willingly. In the end, a Clinton/Obama ticket just might do that. I wish many on the Right, took Bush to task for his centrist failings. Perhaps, we wouldn't be in the crap we are now.

Posted by: Matrue at February 16, 2007 01:32 PM

What a minute. Please explain how centrists do not advocate gun-control (assault rifles, automatic machine guns, armor piercing bullets).

Uh... Because they've read the Second Amendment?

And please explain how universal coverage for the uninsured like Romney's program is also "not centrist".

Uh... Because centrists can count?

Then explain how the military's new take on gays

The military doesn't have a policy on gays, Congress does. Take it up with Nancy.

pro stem cell research, and the right to die are not all topics centrists agree with.

What's the centrist position on these issues? Is it distinguishable from the liberal position? If not, how's that a centrist position?

It is wrong to assume McCain is less conservative than Obama is Liberal.

He is, and even if he weren't, see my comments on symmetricality above.

Anti-abortion is not a centrist position; today's abortion rights are.

Max, I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously if you think that abortion on demand is a "centrist" position. It isn't.

What you're advocating, Max, doesn't seem much like a centrist position. It's a liberal position. And just as with Obama, whatever the freestanding merits of that position may be, it is none-the-less, by definition, not a centrist position. A centrist position hangs somewhere between the two predominant ideologies in this country, and what you're describing skews violently to the left.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 01:56 PM

Max, I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously if you think that abortion on demand is a "centrist" position. It isn't.

Max didn't say that. Are you saying he did? Or is that a Simon-translation, putting words in his mouth? The pew poll you cite suggests that a (IIRC diminished but still solid) majority supports upholding RvW, and (arguablly schizophrenically) some changes to current law that mostly preserve the right to choose.

At some point, don't you think it's bad form to continually insist that what someone else says means what YOU say it means and not what the speaker says it means?

Put the shoe on the other foot a sec. How charitably would you feel towards someone who kept telling you that he knew what you meant when you said x, and that you didn't really know what you yourself really meant when you spoke. You can't possibly think this is an effective method of persuasion, can you?

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 02:49 PM

The Second Amendment does not allow individual citizens the right to bare assault rifles or other military weapons. It talks about State Militias. Watch as plastic guns, coil rifles and other dangerous products are opposed by the police you think Obama doesn’t support. Please define gun and how registering such military weapons violates the Second Amendment. Over stretch on your part that hardly reflects centrist thinking.

I can count and the uninsured are the largest part of our healthcare costs. A plan to provide such coverage is not extreme and NOT socialized healthcare. It is bi"s"arre for you to regard numerous attempts to provide coverage and lower coverage rates for small business, Liberal. Just plain wrong Simon. Just add the numbers of our current military budget. What is your “centrist” plan?

Military experts have talked about shoring up numbers by changing the ”gay” policy. A centrist position certainly advocates allowing gay couples to enjoy the financial and legal benefits of marriage, whether in name or in deed. I think you are confusing "centrist" with conservative. Gays who fight for this country should certainly be allowed the legal advantages of marriage. To argue against this, I think, is conservative, not really “centrist”.

A centrist position is certainly distinguishable from "Liberal" as commonly painted by conservatives...Take gun control or stem cell research. Conservatives are largely against ANY compromise while centrist/Liberals accept certain constraints. Unregulated cloning would be a Far Left position, not flushing embryos down the toilet or making the unborn legal citizens. Advocating opposition that my neighbor be allowed to own an unregistered sniper rifle is hardly Liberal.

Abortion on demand? Catchy phrase. I read your link and 65% of Americans (Liberals?) agree with the protections afforded Roe v Wade. The conservative attempt to change the court reflects this reality. Politicians are not going to change this. The majority of Americans favor the right to an abortion in the first two trimesters or when a mother's life is on the line. I believe Obama opposed a ban on partial birth because it excluded considerations of the mother’s life. Yes? Centrist do not advocate abortion "on demand" but accept abortion under the guidelines as an Individual Choice outlined in Roe v Wade. I support this for other reasons because I think the logic in Roe is a bit faulty.. Centrists that I know, do not accept that the unborn are individuals with the legal rights of the living. Certainly, our Founding Fathers didn't think so. Slaves didn't even have those rights, nor mothers.

By most measures, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton were centrists. Of course, centrists can lean Left or lean Right. When they lean left, you are quick to call them Liberals despite knowing exactly what I mean.

Pray tell, what is a centrist? How do centrists advocate only guns, abortion bans, stem cell bans, anti-gay couple rights, zero coverage for the uninsured and even "In God We Trust" on our money? Sounds like anything not conservative is Liberal and Liberal isn't centrist. Yes, Romney is a Liberal and Obama is a Libertarian.

And I suppose Amnesty (with border security) is Liberal as well as Bush's tax credit for insurance (which really adds up). Oh, I get it, Bush is Liberal, or…a…centrist.

Define what centrist is before accusing Obama of being Far Left (which you interchange with Liberal). Use the Liberal Consensus as the starting point.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 16, 2007 02:58 PM

By most measures, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton were centrists...

Meh. I think you have to bow at least a little to what folks at the time thought. Reagan might appear to be centrist now, and I suppose you could even make that argument if you really tried. But if he looks centrist now, IMO that has to be at least in part due to his success in moving America to the right.

I don't think Kennedy or Carter were especially centrist within the context of their times either. Sure, Kennedy wanted to cut taxes, but what was the top rate then. And Carter? I don't really get that at all. Much as I like the idea of centrism, It feels like bad form to me to look back and say "oh, all these Presidents were centrists..."

I mean, you can make the argument, and find supporting evidence, but I'd wonder how much of that centrism was centrism of necessity driven by the job as opposed to innate philosophical centrism.

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 03:23 PM

Max didn't say that.

That's exactly what he said! He said that "today's abortion rights" - which is abortion on demand -- is the centrist position. Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 03:24 PM

The Second Amendment does not allow individual citizens the right to bare assault rifles or other military weapons. It talks about State Militias. Watch as plastic guns, coil rifles and other dangerous products are opposed by the police you think Obama doesn’t support. Please define gun and how registering such military weapons violates the Second Amendment. Over stretch on your part that hardly reflects centrist thinking.

The Second Amendment categorically and ineluctably guarantees that government cannot abridge the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. That it's an individual right in pursuit of a broader goal is plain enough from the text alone, even setting aside that it codifies an individual common-law tradition that was six centuries old by the time of the revolutionary war, having originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms. The Assize of Arms, no less than the Second Amendment, had in mind the common defense, but it achieved that purpose by arming individuals. You would abstract from the right to the reason and then eliminate the right - which is impermissable. Gun control isn't a centrist issue, unless you're talking about a Constitutonal Amendment. It's like talking about a centrist position on electing a 32-year old President (or campaign finance reform, for that matter): the issue is off the democratic stage.

I can count and the uninsured are the largest part of our healthcare costs. A plan to provide such coverage is not extreme and NOT socialized healthcare.

That's a goal, not a play. Whether it's extreme and socialized healthcare depends on the specifics of what the plan is.

Military experts have talked about shoring up numbers by changing the ”gay” policy. A centrist position certainly advocates allowing gay couples to enjoy the financial and legal benefits of marriage, whether in name or in deed.

My view is simple: if the military wants DADT, Congress should leave it in place. If the military doesn't want DADT, Congress should repeal it. But the common denominator is Congress: the more important point here - and the one I criticized you for - is the mistaken view that DADT is a "military policy," which it is not. It is statutory law, passed by Congress, and remaining in force at Congress' suffrance. Which means that since January 2d, 2007, DADT has been the official policy of the Congressional Democratic Party.

As far as gay marriage is concerned - the centrist position, it seems pretty obvious to me, is civil unions but no marriage.

... the protections afforded Roe v Wade. The conservative attempt to change the court reflects this reality. Politicians are not going to change this. The majority of Americans favor the right to an abortion in the first two trimesters or when a mother's life is on the line.

As usual, we have an abortion sympathizer trying to have it both ways: If 65% of Americans support the right to choose, why would you need to rely on an explicitly countermajoritarian (and constitutionally illegitimate) holding action by the Supreme Court? If you have a majority, you don't need Roe-Casey. You only need the Supreme Court to (illegitimately) keep the matter out of the hands of the majority if you think the majority's going to do something you disagree with. Ergo, if you believe the majority supports abortion rights, the only issue in play as to Roe is its legitimacy as a matter of Constitutional law, which no one denies is zero, and so you should fully support its overruling.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 03:48 PM

Max didn't say that.

That's exactly what he said! He said that "today's abortion rights" - which is abortion on demand -- is the centrist position.

Gee I must have been asleep while they passed a law that said "if a woman demands an abortion, it must be provided." All this time, I thought the doctors performing abortions were doing so voluntarily.

Posted by: bk at February 16, 2007 04:08 PM

Brian, the abortion debate is about restrictions imposed by government. Even if there was not a single doctor in this country willing to perform an abortion, as long as the law permits them to do so there is unrestricted access to abortion, i.e. abortion on demand.

Posted by: Simon at February 16, 2007 04:13 PM

Today's gun laws don't legally provide guns on demand any more than Row v Wade provides abortion. Some even argue that if a woman is raped, she shouldn't be allowed to "demand" an abortion. Parental notification, restrictions on third term abortions, even the regulation of the doctors who provide abortion do not make it Simon's slogan "Abortion on Demand". Along with protecting the brain dead, the effort conservatives defend the unliving is extraordinary. Governing the living is a bit harder to do.

Next will come "Murder on Demand" which is what this whole argument is about. A human soul is murdered when? And what proof? Lockean property rights or Fundamentalist faith?

And Simon, as long as there are hangers, there will be "abortion" on demand in the sense you are trying to spin. We've been there, done that. Center is reasonable restrictions that the rich and poor alike will get around anyway. I think I'm getting the picture of your "centrist" plank.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 16, 2007 05:49 PM

Simon, my neighbor does not have the right to ready a fleet of M-1s in his garage. The Supreme Court will not uphold the right of citizens to own the kind of firepower needed to protect against tyranny from within. We will rely on our soldiers to do what is right and civil disobedience if it comes to that. It is astounding you suggest centrism supports all arms to be the right to possess without restrictions or regulation. I sense a gun sympathizer reading far too much into the Second Amendment. The courts have ruled on the limits of gun ownership. No, you will not be able to buy anti-aircraft weapons or even an armed F-16. Common sense alone rejects such a view. Our Founding Fathers never saw the technology or terrorism an individual could buy. We do have armed State Militias which can resist tyranny. I would not let them become soley governed by the Federal government.

As far as abortion, you are wrong about my position, but the arguments are very long. In short, I disagree with Row v Wade and would like to see a Constitutional Amendment (and another one clarifying privacy) declaring the basic right to an abortion. Within the present partisan conditions, I think it should more perfectly be regulated by States. You can live in South Carolina and I can live in New York. Gun control is different because private militias in my neighbor’s state could easily effect me. States could decide what, if any, regulations placed on abortion. This might head us down to a blue state v red state mentality. What we have now may be the most practical solution.

Yes, it is all in the plan that provides insurance coverage. If socializing medicine is how Obama will provide coverage, then you might have a case. You attacked Romney and implicit was some scorn I sense in believing reform is critical. It won't be tort reform that cures our ailing system, will it? What is the centrist plan?

Gays serving has come from the military as of late. It is wrong to think the military had no influence on policy. Frankly, who could do a better job saving ones ass? I do not see a Constitutional argument for banning gay marriage. For now it seems the centrist position is at least countering those who don't want even civil rights for such unions.

Centrist positions would be

1. Reasonable gun control

2. Reasonable plan to provide universal coverage and lower healthcare increases.

2. At least -civil protection for gay unions

4. Present protection for adults to have abortions under reasonable restrictions enumerated by States.

5. Embryonic stem cell research with regulation

6. Cloning with regulation

7. Amnesty (with penalty and requirements) AND border security

8. Improved energy policy that restricts domestic drilling in wildlife sanctuaries as a cure-all and which reduces green house emissions, while promoting modern generating plants/carbon sequestering and alternative fuel and storage/delivery systems.

That sounds far more centrist than conservative or Liberal (Far Left kind)

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 16, 2007 06:47 PM

Is this the Liberal thing to do? Unfortuately, national security trumps gay marriage. I don't think that terrorism, Iran and global reality are below items we have discussed on this thread. I sense that some Democrats fear any move to the right and want to pre-emopt it now.

This puts alot of pressure on Clinton. Maybe it is designed to help Obama, Who knows? They are walking into a political pit.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 16, 2007 07:55 PM

Simon,
It has been a while since I looked at The United States v Miller. I have also looked at numerous State gun-control rulings. I find it ironic that as US soldiers struggle to disarm the citizens of Iraq, some of the debate regarding the Second Amendment is frozen in time. The concept our Founding Fathers MAY have been bestowing on its citizens was a call for individuals to participate in a State Militia. By giving the people the right, they sought to hold State government AND Federal government in check. An earlier wording of the Second Amendment included abstentions in the Militia for “religious” objectors. The right to bar arms was almost an exchange for individuals to pledge support in the State Militias. These would be composed of all male citizens (that could vote? LOL). The Miller ruling upheld only those weapons that were not used by such a Militia could be restricted by government. Small personal firearms were excluded, as were the “weapons on criminals”. Miller’s Court mistakenly thought Militias did not use Shot Guns so he ruled against Miller who was caught crossing State lines with an 18 Gauge shot gun..

Gun advocates have taken Miller’s ruling as upholding an individual’s right to bare all arms required to resist Federal and State tyranny (decided by the individual?) while minimizing any connection such weapons had to any organized State Militia. Of course the Commerce Clause bring into play government regulation of firearms. Gun control advocates however, take Miller’s reference to Militias to assert the claim that “State Militias” are what “people” refers to and that the usual mini-preamble beginning the Second Amendment clarifies that such arms are only for the State Militia and not for the defense of one individual against the aggression of another. There were undoubtedly those Founders who felt that individuals baring arms could resist STATE tyranny in a time when Federal enforcement of law was difficult and States did not want Federal troops policing States.

The trend going back to the late 1800s forward is for the court to shift the right to bare arms on the Militia, though it seems to deprive citizens of a state their resistance State tyranny carried out by said State Militias (soldiers could resist). With the rise of Federal power, citizens had a new check against State tyranny while State Militias could resist Federal Tyranny. In any case, as citizens turned away from serving in an organized Militia and service became specialized using weapons unavailable to citizens, many decisions have since been rendered by State Courts (none over-turned by the Supreme Court), that upholds gun registration, bans on military weapons, limits on individuals to a class of weapons primarily for reasonable self-defense and hunting and restricts on the use and transportation of weapons as well as their manufacture (see case against Beretta). Is this really a perversion of the Second Amendment?

If individuals have the right to bare any arm necessary to defeat the possible tyranny of government, what prevents anyone from building a nuke? This is another “Committee of the Whole” scenario. Many rulings make this unlikely to happen. One judge ruled that a ban on a knife would prevent too may reasonable activities from being performed as to deem it reasonable and over-turned the ban, adding that the ban, in itself did not encroach on the people’s right to bare arms, while another judge upheld a ban on a Mack-10 because pressing the trigger rapidly simulated an automatic firearm, which was banned.

Conservatives tend to see defending this “people” right as the essence of individual empowerment. I think however, a conceptual shift has taken place in America. The right to bare arms has evolved in relation to personal protection. Remember, arms were not a right because they served Individual protection. We are talking about any arm for Militias to resist other Militias. Arms were allowed so individual Militia members could organize and resist publicly recognized abuses of power. As Indians and criminals threaten citizens, gopher raided the fields, many colonialists saw the Second Amendment as a right for self-defense. Soon criminals and Indians had better weapons and only Militias supplied by the government could stop them. Still as a check on civil violence, weapons were permitted and citizens were often rallied to assist Militias and Police. This might seem simplistic, but the point I am getting to, is that the Second Amendment has come to be an Individual Right to self-protect. That is as wrong an interpretation as Roe v Wade, but I can live with it. Yes, State Militias collectively are a good deterrence against Federal tyranny. Federal power regulates State abuse. The idea in this age that each individual has the right to keep nerve gas in his or her basement to remain free is ludicrous. As I said, just look at trying to de-arm Iraq or Gaxa. We have citizens engaging in firefights over the Southern border. We have assault rifles taking down swat teams. We have Right Wing Militias that can blow up Federal buildings. Soon we might have Snipers with Austrian rifles or IED.

Another construct has been shifting too. Our Founding Fathers didn’t believe government was liable for the actions of individuals against other individuals. Justice was good enough. If government is liable to keep criminals killing people, they would be forced to occupy States with Soldiers. Still there would be murder. Even a” reasonable” qualification would mean vast power to prevent and interdict private actions. Let ‘em have guns!

Terrorism has changed this. Government is now criminally liable for negligence in implementing reasonable efforts to prevent terrorist acts. If they fail to check bags and bombs go off, some court will determine if the government acted reasonably. This shift in liability towards the government that can organize a national defense against terrorism has implications with certain interpretations of the second Amendment whether they are correct or not. To limit terrorist threats, individuals cannot get weapons on demand without registration, restrictions or regulations. To repeat, if the DoD has a pain ray, it will not follow that individuals have the right to own pain rays too. That liberty presents and even greater threat of more liberties and the days of citizens fighting US soldiers in the street is not a shared vision. There are plenty of checks and balances to keep State and Federal power in the control of elected citizens.

While conservatives accept a trade off when it comes to wiretapping, they resist accepting the need to control individual purchase of conventional weapons. As more arms, with greater power become available, our liberty must make a choice. Do we say, arm away, or do we continue to regulate firearms and weapons as we have been (and better concerning WMD materials and advanced weapons)? The centrist position would accept regulations, background checks, and make available personal defense weapons for qualified citizens. The NRA, I believe, has advocated the right to bare arms for ex felons. The position stated by Simon, while warning of government abuse, advocates a extreme position, untenable given today’s threats of terrorism and powerful technology. A strict reading would place Polonium in the hands of any crackpot who has the money. So as I first stated, I believe some gun and arms control is a centrist position. No individual arms control is irresponsible and extreme. Total arm restriction infringes on sufficient self-defense and deterrence for local abuse.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 03:21 AM

Please excuse the typos. It was late......

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 03:29 AM

The last link isn't a "centrist position", but underscores a Lockean argument FOR individuals to stock nukes. It does show the gap between political thoery and expediency. Your neighbor fortunately, will not be getting nukes. Our resistance to Iranian nukes confronts their natural rights as does our soldiers disarming Iraqis. Quite a Parodox for a conservative and a Liberal.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 03:47 AM

Again, it was very late and my apologies to all. Beer doesn't arm proof-reading and my post needed tweeking. Please substitute this post with the former.

Simon,
It has been a while since I looked at The United States v Miller. I have also looked at numerous State gun-control rulings to see where the trend has been going and why. I find it ironic that as US soldiers struggle to disarm the citizens of Iraq and we question Iran's "natural right" to arm itself with any weapon, some of the debate regarding the Second Amendment seems frozen in time. The concept our Founding Fathers MAY have been bestowing on its citizens was a call for "individuals" to participate in a State Militia. By giving the people the right to bare arms, the Founders may have sought to hold State government AND Federal government in check. An earlier draft wording of the Second Amendment included exemptions in the Militia for “religious” objectors. Did this imply some obligation? The right to bare arms seemed almost an exchange for individuals to pledge support in the State Militias. These oraganized parties would be composed of all male citizens (that could vote? LOL). The Miller ruling upheld that those weapons that were not used by such a Militia could be restricted by government. Small personal firearms were excluded, as were the “weapons used by criminals”. This view seems to place restrictions on arms for the purpose of personal self-defense. In any case, the Court mistakenly thought Militias did not use shot guns soite ruled against Miller who was caught crossing State lines with an 18 gauge shot gun..

Gun advocates have taken the Miller’s decision as upholding an individual’s right to bare all arms required to resist possible Federal and State tyranny (decided by the whol?) while minimizing any connection such weapons had to actual affiliations with any organized State Militias. Of course the Commerce Clause brings into play government regulation of firearms. That is another matter. Gun control advocates however, take Miller decision’s reference to Militias to assert the claim that “State Militias” are what “people” refers to in the Second Amendment and that the usual mini-preamble beginning the it clarifies that such arms are ONLY for the State Militia and not for the defense of one individual against the aggression of another. Strangely there is no mention of self-defense requiring the right to bare any arms. There were undoubtedly those Founders who felt that individuals baring arms were needed resist STATE tyranny in a time when Federal enforcement of law was difficult and States did not want Federal troops policing States.

The trend going back to the late 1800s forward, was for the court to shift the right to bare arms on the Militia, though it seems to deprive citizens of a State to resistant State tyranny carried out by said State Militias (soldiers could resist) against its citizens. With the rise of Federal power, citizens had a new check against State tyranny (and a new threat) while State Militias could still resist Federal Tyranny. In any case, as citizens turned away from serving in an organized Militia and service became specialized using weapons unavailable to citizens, many decisions have since been rendered by State Courts (none over-turned by the Supreme Court), that upholds gun registration, bans on military weapons, limits on individuals to a class of weapons primarily for reasonable self-defense and hunting and restricts on the use and transportation of weapons as well as their manufacture (see case against Beretta). Is this really a perversion of the Second Amendment?

If individuals have the right to bare any arm necessary to defeat the possible tyranny of government, what prevents anyone from building a nuke? (see discussion in links)This is another “Committee of the Whole” scenario. Many rulings and much precedent make this unlikely to happen. One judge ruled that a ban on a knife would prevent too may reasonable activities from being performed as to deem it unreasonable and over-turned the ban, adding that the ban, in itself did not encroach on the people’s right to bare arms, while another judge upheld a ban on a Mack-10 because pressing the trigger rapidly simulated an automatic firearm, which was banned.

Conservatives tend to see defending this “people” right as the essence of individual empowerment. I think however, a conceptual shift has taken place in America. The right to bare arms has evolved in relation to personal protection. Remember, arms were not a right because they served Individual protection. Of course most households had weapons and the idea of self-defense was clear. We are talking about Any and ALL arms for Militias to resist other Militias. These arms were allowed so individual Militia members could organize and resist publicly recognized abuses of power. As Indians and criminals threaten citizens, gopher raided the fields, many colonialists saw the Second Amendment as a right for self-defense. Soon criminals and Indians had better weapons and only Militias and police supplied by the government could stop them. Still, as a check on civil violence, more weapons were permitted and citizens were often rallied to assist Militias and Police. Come on Posse. This might seem simplistic, but the point I am getting to, is that the Second Amendment has come to be an Individual Right to self-protect. That is as wrong an interpretation as Roe v Wade, but I can live with it. Yes, State Militias collectively are a good deterrence against Federal tyranny. Federal power regulates State abuse. The idea in this age that each individual has the right to keep nerve gas in his or her basement to remain free is ludicrous. As I said, just look at trying to de-arm Iraq or Gaxa. We have citizens engaging in firefights over the Southern border of Texas. We have assault rifles taking down swat teams. We have Right Wing Militias that can blow up Federal buildings. Soon we might have Snipers with Austrian rifles or IED.

Another legal construct has been shifting too. Our Founding Fathers didn’t believe government was liable for the actions of individuals against other individuals. Justice was good enough. If government is liable to keep criminals from killing people, they would be forced to occupy States with Soldiers. There would still be murder. Even a ” reasonable” qualification would mean vast government power to prevent and interdict private actions. Let ‘em have guns!

Terrorism has changed this. Government is now criminally liable for negligence in implementing reasonable efforts to prevent terrorist acts. It is a slow creep of our times. If government fails to check bags and bombs go off, some court might determine the government acted unreasonably in predicting its citizens. This shift in liability towards the government that can organize a national defense against terrorism has implications with certain interpretations of the second Amendment whether they are correct or not. To limit terrorist threats, individuals cannot get weapons on demand without registration, restrictions or regulations. To repeat, if the DoD has a pain ray, it will not follow that individuals have the right to own pain rays too. That liberty presents and even greater threat of more liberties damaged and the days of citizens fighting US soldiers in the street of America is not a shared vision. There are plenty of checks and balances to keep State and Federal power in the control of elected citizens.

While conservatives accept a trade off when it comes to wiretapping (many don’t), they resist accepting the need to control individual purchase of conventional weapons. As more arms, with greater power become available, our liberty must make a choice. Do we say, arm away, or do we continue to regulate firearms and weapons as we have been (and had better concerning WMD materials and advanced weapons)? The centrist position would accept regulations, background checks, and make available personal defense weapons for qualified citizens. A centrist would recognize the dilemma not fully resolved in the Constitution. Who has the ultimate power to disarm, government or it’s citizens? The NRA, I believe, has advocated the right to bare arms for ex felons. The position stated by Simon, while built on thwarting government abuse, advocates a extreme position, untenable given today’s threats of terrorism and powerful technology. A majority could attack government should they decide government had abused its power and let’s say started an illegal war cost citizen’s live and bounty. A strict reading of the Second Amendment might place Polonium in the hands of any crackpot who has the money. So as I first stated, I believe some gun and arms control is a centrist position, unlike this position built upon Lockean political construct. Having no individual arms control is irresponsible and extreme. Total arm restriction infringes on sufficient self-defense and deterrence for local abuse. It seems centrist thinking balances the paradox with prudence and ought not to reject gun (arms) control nor prevent reasonable self-defense.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 10:08 AM

Once again we've degenerated into an argument about "who's a centrist".
"I don't want to belong to any club that would accept ME as a member"
Marx

Posted by: c3 at February 17, 2007 10:09 AM

State gun-control link that didn't seem to work above.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 10:52 AM

C,
I think that is unfair. The thread quickly became an attack on Obama's "liberality" as opposed to his "centrism". Simon presented some views that I do not think are "centrist”. He certainly claimed Obama’s positions are not centrist. How do you do that without any criteria of centrism? Does your reading of the Second Amendment suggest your neighbor has the “natural right” to bare nukes as a self-defense against possible government tyranny? What are the criteria for their use? So in calling Obama's support of gun-control Liberal, it IS fair to ask what a centrist position regarding gun-control would be, otherwise attacking Obama's lack of centrism is absurd and partisan.

Does that make sense? If we came closer to a criteria of what centrist policy regarding abortion, gun-control, pre-emption, healthcare, immigration and energy would look like, we could engage in what Simon started. Is centrism simply a web- cafe for conservatives and liberals to exchange ideas? We are nearing global conflict to prevent one nation from acquiring their "natural right" to have nukes. Our soldiers are dying to disarm citizens of Iraq. Isn't it strange to support present US policy and have such extreme views regarding Constitutional declarations such as the Second Amendment?. Some here suggest a draft is unconstitutional, or that the Lockean argument doesn't hold in the case of the unborn. Without a coherent expectation of centrist logic, what is the nature of this blog?

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that absolutist claim to individual arms sufficient to defeat our "tyrannical" government would render it impossible for government to enforce minority rights should majoritarianism of the "people" decide rebellion was in order. Does not centrism imply a rejection of extreme interpretation, and impractical ones at that? It is a classical paradox of Liberal v Democracy (Majoritarianism).

I would like Simon to reply. I would like Simon to show me where the Constitution forbids abortion. I would like to know how Liberal views are excluded from centrist equations and conservative ones are okay. This offends simple fairness..

I don't think my post was a degenerate one and it speaks directly to the claim that Obama's support of gun-control makes him a non-centrist Far Left Liberal. I threw out some personal views on what a centrist plank MIGHT look like and it is not so different from numerous ones circulating. Of course, it is not absolute and contains both conservative and liberal positions.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 17, 2007 12:17 PM

Ahh, the smell of the bullshit big government canard.
IF the last 14 years have shown anything it's that Republicans are more responsible for big government, not Democrats.

Posted by: Marcus at February 17, 2007 02:17 PM

All this debate on what degree of abortion laws or gun control laws is "centrist" is almost irrelevant.

Politics is about the role of government. Painting the abortion issue into a "pro-abortion versus anti-abortion debate" is misleading as is painting gun control into a "pro-gun versus anti gun" debate. Legislation doesn't have anything to do with whether you personally LIKE abortion or LIKE guns. It has to do with whether the government should be granted the power to prevent doctors from performing certain types of abortion procedures or whether the government should be granted the power to prevent gun-owners from owning certain kinds of guns.

I disagree with Simon's position on abortion, but I think, if I understand him correct, that I agree with him on gun rights. We debate all day until we're blue in the face as to what constitutes the perfect "centrist" position on gun control. But the fact of the matter is that we have a Second Amendment that explicitly states that the government shall not infringe on our right to bear arms. Gun control runs countrary to the Second Amendment because it grants the government the power to infringe on this right.

Maxtrue,

With all due respect, I completely disagree with your view on gun control, particularly with your following point:

I sense a gun sympathizer reading far too much into the Second Amendment. The courts have ruled on the limits of gun ownership. No, you will not be able to buy anti-aircraft weapons or even an armed F-16. Common sense alone rejects such a view. Our Founding Fathers never saw the technology or terrorism an individual could buy.

First of all, the Second Amendment is pretty clear in what is says. The government shall not infringe upon our right to bare arms. It doesn't posit any restrictions on this right. It doesn't say anything about the government being allowed to, at its discretion, ban certain types of arms that you feel are too dangerous.

The fact that courts have ruled in favor of gun control doesn't change the fact that the Second Amendment explicitly denies the government the power to infringe on the right to bear arms. Prohibiting the ownership of certain types is an infringment on this right.

Secondly, the fact that the Founding Father could not have forseen the technology or conditions that we have today is a poor justification for gun control. The Founding Father's were not blind to the possibility that technonology might produce stronger and deadlier arms. They lived during the Industrial Revolution--a period of time that saw massive improvements in technology.

The Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility that future generation might be dissatisfied with the Constitution as it was written and may want to change it. That's why they created the Amendment process. If proponents of gun control feel that unrestricted gun rights interferes with our government's ability to keep us safe, then the proper response would be to amend the Second Amendment rather than pretending that it does not exist.

What all this has to do with Barack Obama, I don't know, but I find all this talk about restricting certain rights in the name of "centrism" disturbing. One should never argue against personal/individual liberties out of fear on not sounding "centrist" enough.

Posted by: nicrivera at February 17, 2007 02:46 PM

Simon is too far to the right to even begin to recognize what centrist means. Based on his posts in this thread there isn't a Republican talking point he doesn't buy into.

The truth about "abortion on demand" is that Roe V. Wade allowed for the setting of limitations. The main reason that the supposed pro-life groups have failed in getting those limitations enacted is that they consider them inadequate and have for the most part crafted laws that they hoped would pass muster with the courts and later be able to be interpreted broadly enough to do more than the courts would allow. So far the courts haven't fallen for it. Of course if Bush gets to replace the right justice before his term ends that could change.

And arguments like his about the 2nd Amendment are one of the things that inspired the title of my blog.

Posted by: Jim S at February 18, 2007 01:47 AM

Nic,
The Second Amendment begins by a reference to State Militias and it gives the right to bare arms to the "people" as opposed to specifically giving this right to "individuals". Does that make you think? The mere fact that you find that the Second Amendment gives my neighbor the natural right to own a nuke makes your comments suspect. I do not see Simon here defending bio/chem-weapons in my neighbor's backyard. Our Founding Fathers DID NOT anticipate an individual having the power to destroy government BY HIMSELF, or the dangers to society as a whole that such technology presents.

You also to fail to consider this: who has the greater power? Should the "people" have the right to over power government, anytime the majority wants something, or does the government have the absolute power to enforce the law and protect the minority which would be hard to do when individuals possess nukes?

In addition, you fail to see that our Founding Fathers wanted everyone to be part of the State Militia. Look at the formula of the Second Amendment. Earlier wording specifically allowed some “religious objectors” an exemption from this mandatory (?) organized Militia. Here is the seed for the draft. By giving the right to bare arms to "the people", came the responsibility and obligation to defend the Constitution with force if need be. Soon most male voters did not want to be part of the State Militias and America found itself looking at a draft. Remember, State Militias were not just a force to protect against Federal abuse. Militias were used for the defense of America. I believe the historical record shows that.

As far as abortion, I do not know if Roe v Wade makes sense. I do know that until the unborn is given a different legal status than it has now, on purely Lockean constructs, the fetus is mostly the property of the woman (men have some DNA in the mix as well). Morning-after-pills HAVE made terminating a newly formed blastula "termination on demand". The only hope abortion opponents have in the end is to ban medicines and declare a “citizen” at the point of conception. This will not happen and flushing embryos down the drain makes pro-lifer’s moral position assailable anyway. The real battle will be over longevity research. Jim is on target about abortion.

As far as blasting Obama or Clinton for not being centrist is a dangerous claim when no criteria for centrism is offered. I repeat Nic and Simon, allowing your neighbor to stockpile nukes is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment nor is it reasonably centrist. The Bill of Rights FOLLOWED the Constitution and there are plenty of articles that establishes the right of "legal" government in regard to weapons from trumping mobs of individuals armed with anthrax. Arming the people with such arms would prevent the Constitutional process from working. Now that was not the intent of the Second Amendment as it refers to State Militias, which does not even use the term "individual".

The British used smallpox on the Indians. Should my neighbor have this too? The fact is we have domestic "arms" control. We have seen the consequence of abortion bans and this country will not return to such a situation. Centrism in “my” view means taking the best of the Left and Right (minus the radical extremes) and finding a pragmatic, effective middle. I am not saying force, or ethics or even principles are extremes in themselves, but rather their ideological application that make absolutist positions uncompromising and self-defeating. Arguing against Liberties that do not exist (the right not to be drafted or own a nuke) or personal desires that threaten the liberties of others (see some elements of the Patriot Act or terminating a fetus in the third trimester when the life of the mother is not in danger) are certainly concerns for centrism. In these expanded freedoms lies the crow bars that will pull our Liberal Democracy apart and destroy this political experiment.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 18, 2007 11:17 AM

Max, your argument about the Second Amendment would abstract from the right to the reason and then eliminate the right. A survey of the historical development of the right protected by the Second Amendment makes it absolutely clear that it is an individual right, and as Nic observed above, the plain text of the amendment defeats your position: "the Second Amendment is pretty clear in what is says. The government shall not infringe upon our right to bare arms. It doesn't posit any restrictions on this right. It doesn't say anything about the government being allowed to, at its discretion, ban certain types of arms that you feel are too dangerous."

I think the problem is that you're reading the Second Amendment as an if/then problem: if a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." From that starting point, I think you answer the first question in the negative, and assume that obviates the second sentence. But that is not the nature of the Second Amendment, which says, quite clearly, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, some textualists go so far as to say that they don't care about the purpose at all - the text governs. I don't mind a purposive inquiry to the extent that such an inquiry is a good-faith effort to shed light on ambiguous text. But when such an inquiry is transparently used to go around the text - a fortiori when, as here, the text is clear - as you and Breyer would suggest, it is invalid.

The evolving technology requirement is unsatisfactory, too. The Framers could no more have foreseen the development of automatic weapons than they could have foreseen the development of infra red scanning devices that allow law enforcement officers to see through your walls. By your logic, Kyllo v. United States -- which held that a search had ocurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the cops used the afore-mentioned IR scanner, and the search must therefore comply with the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment -- was wrongly-decided. By your logic, the assumption by courts that the internet (which the framers surely never foresaw) is protected by the First Amendment is wrong and ought to be challenged. After all, if the Second Amendment only protects "arms" within the meaning of the late 18th amendment's munitions technology, why should it protect "speech," "press" or "searches" carried out by technology unknown to the framers? The meaning of the Constitution does not change, but its application continually evolves in the sense that it applies to new technologies unforeseen by the framers. That is as true of the Fourth Amendment as it is of the Second Amendment and it is of the First Amendment.

It's unnecessary to reach your policy-level arguments about whether the Second Amendment ought to forbid certain weapons, because once it's established that it does, "ought" ceases to be an operative concern unless you're talking about Constitutional amendments. On the other hand, Max, you'll be pleased to know that there is at least one Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Bill of Rights should give way - or at least, bend - to the necessities of war: Korematsu.

As to "I would like Simon to show me where the Constitution forbids abortion" - where have I claimed that the Constitution forbids abortion. It does not, and I have never claimed that it does. In point of fact, both Scalia and I have explicitly rejectedthe argument that it does. Nor does it protect that right from government infringement, and nor does it give the Federal government general regulatory power over it. My position on abortion is very simple: the Constitution says nothing at all about it, one way or the other, and where the Constitution neither grants a power to the Federal government nor withholds it from the states, the question is reserved to the states. In an appropriate challenge, I would strike down the Federal ban on partial birth abortion as readily as I would overturn Roe.

Lastly, I do not suggest that "Liberal views are excluded from centrist equations [while] conservative [view]s are okay." What I suggested upothread is that if your position is indistinguishable from a ilberal position, it is ipso facto not centrist.

Posted by: Simon at February 18, 2007 12:28 PM

By the way - I'm baffled with your insistence on talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction. That isn't the issue before us.

To decide whether campaign finance laws violate the first amendment, I don't have to decide whether the meaning of "speech" extends to comercial speech. The First Amendment, like the other amendments that form the bill of rights, is a limitation on government; and "whatever else it prevents government from doing, the absolute core protection of the First Amendment is that a Federal statute that imposes content-based prior restraint on political speech is void." Questions about whether obscenity or commercial speech are protected are interesting, but they aren't really relevant to the debate on campaign finance, which falls within the core political speech protection of the First Amendment.

Likewise, it isn't necessary to determine whether the Second Amendment protects your right to have WMD or field artillery in your back yard. No one is claiming the right (or desire) to stockpile nuclear weapons. The debate that you want to have relates to small arms: handguns and rifles. Handgun and rifle technology have improved dramatically since 1791, but such weapons are plainly within the meaning of "arms" contemplated by the Second Amendment. And that's the question that the debate turns on - if my Browning 9mm falls within the meaning of "arms," that's the end of the debate over whether you can ban it at the Federal level. Now, sure, there are ancillary debates: is the Second Amendment incorporated against the states (an argument that puts liberals in a serious bind, because there is no argument that the second amendment resists incorporation that doesn't equally apply to all the others except part of the First)? What other kinds of munitions are covered by "arms"? Would registration requirements "infringe" the right to keep and bare (I would say no)? But those are separate issues when talking about federal gun bans, which is what you're advancing.

And to be clear, what you suggest might well be very sensible! It might be the most logical, sensible centrist solution, and I might even agree with you were it a pure question of policy! But the issue is that the Second Amendment forbids it. The Constitution does not always produce sensible results, and if you're reading it to produce results that you think are "sensible" in every situation, you're probably reading it wrong, because "sensible" is a subjective concept, and once you start thinking that the Constitution implements all your subjective judgments, you're into Bill Brennan / Jack Balkin territory.

Posted by: Simon at February 18, 2007 12:48 PM

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I am saying that first stating, “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” implies the “reason” or logical justification for what follows; BECAUSE a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the “people” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If well regulated militias were the deliberate context in which the “people” are given a right, if no mention of the word “individual” is written, nor is “people” divorced from such context of a well organized militia in this particular amendment, then reason does follow that; -“individuals” with no connection to such Militia should not have this right to bear any arms. Some courts have agreed and the Miller decision upholds that only weapons NOT used by State Militias can be banned. I might add that whether Miller was a member of a well-organized militia and had a weapon for the sole purpose stated in the Second SHOULD be relevant. Unfortunately, it was not. Nor did the court understand that shot guns have been used in every war since their invention. Thus, I do not agree with the Miller decision. As I have said, many State Courts certainly restrict guns and shift the Second’s right to State Militias, although I know our Founding Fathers were weary of State government as well.

It is also clear that the militia context was important when noticing prior wordings considered that mentioned “religious objectors” being exempt from militias. Why wasn’t there an amendment that read, “A secure protected people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, shall not be infringed.” Just a question..

“After all, if the Second Amendment only protects "arms" within the meaning of the late 18th amendment's munitions technology, why should it protect "speech," "press" or "searches" carried out by technology unknown to the framers?”

I assume that the Second Amendment gave State militias the power to resist Federal Tyranny. Therefore, an escalation of technology by one is due the other. You would have a better chance advocating that STATES should have control of some nukes rather than the “people” because this would help well organized Militias in resisting Federal tyranny.
You also ignore the real problem. Who ultimately can disarm who? The side with the greater arms? To extrapolate and simply confer on to individuals with no connection to well-organized militas (or even with them) a right to ANY arms AND zero criteria of how to decide whether government has acted illegally, over steps. Is it a majority vote, or each individual’s judgment? The internet is regulated as well as media. There is no absolute free speech. One cannot disseminate classified or top secret information. One cannot coordinate terrorist activities. Evolution does affect the Second and Fourth Amendment. In the Second, our Founding Father did not anticipate THE INDIVIDUAL BEING ABLE TO DESTROY GOVERNENT and the “people”, nor did they envision free speech to included publicly posting the blueprints for a WMD on the internet.

I do not see in a straightforward reading of the Second Amendment how the court can interpret this to mean that my neighbor as a right to possess anything that can be considered arms which shall not be infringed. You say this does not follow from your reading but I think it does and so it seems does Nic.The courts do not accept this. I am not saying we should consider new laws to limit this right, but rather that the Second does not say this. This was a particular Amendment involving States feeling more secure against the possible tyranny of a Federal government. It wasn’t about personal defense or even individuals taking on government as individuals. I am not arguing backwards. I believe the long precedent of law establishes the rights of State Militias to arm as well a acknowledging the people the right to protect himself or herself with guns (which is not really a part of the Second Amendment.). You make nukes a question separate from the Second, but your take does allow the “people” ALL arms that would be required for a well organized militia to resist by force the tyranny of government.

Abortion

Until you grant a status for a fertilized human egg starkly different than that of any other property, destroying such property is protected by the Constitution. If you want to ban abortion, you must make the unborn, persons, and grant it the legal rights due living citizens. Roe v Wade extended certain protection for the unborn and until pro-lifers reveal their end game and resolve the extent they seek to make the unborn subject to certain rights of the born, then abortion will continue with restraints under Roe v Wade. I would not mind ditching Roe v Wade, but if the pro-life movement intends to make a fertilized egg a citizen, then I think we should keep things in place as they are. To be honest, I think you want to end Roe v Wade and then see conservative justices support the new idea that a two month old fetus is really a person sharing the same criteria we think of as a person who can be murdered. Some have tried to make pain the threshold for a protected individual. I am willing to consider a reasonable point where a fetus is more a citizen than not, but I think it prudent to resist false negotiations aimed at making “Murder illegal”. I might be compromising, but I’m not stupid. And think of the damage to our more prefect union should we be divided now into states that allow abortion and those who don’t and are going to hell. Would embargos follow and how will this not all fall under the Commerce Clause?

“What I suggested upothread is that if your position is indistinguishable from a ilberal position, it is ipso facto not centrist.”

And therein lies our real argument Simon. Non-absolutist Liberal views and Conservative views are incorporated into a centrist view. One can be a centrist Liberal and a centrist Conservative. One cannot be a Right Winger or Left Winger centrist. You make the mistake by grouping various Liberal strains including the Far Far Left into one group and then say anything buying into such a group is not centrist. I think you are wrong. Some candidates have reached too far right or left on some issues to appease their bases while having other centrist views. I am not a Far Lefty. My views come from an appreciation of conservative and liberal thinking and a need to find solutions. I do not support unrestricted cloning or buying fetuses from women for money to be used for research. Universal coverage not socializing the entire medical system is both a Liberal goal and centrist. While I will stand with you fighting against Far Left causes like retreating from our resistance to allow Iran their natural right for ANY arms, I ask you to stand with me fighting Far Right causes which include attacking All Liberals and Liberal Ideas because in this set exist some obnoxious and dangerous ideas. I don’t like abortion as an act. Who does? I think parents have the right to know if their kid is getting one and by whom. If something happens, I can get sued for negligence. I support a person’s right to own a gun or rifle. I do not want ex felons or loonies having one and certainly not terrorists. I don’t look towards the Second Amendment for that right, not being a member of my State’s militia. I believe I have a right to have a gun because government isn’t granted the liability for failing to protect me from criminal acts by other individuals. Where is it granted to only government the right to act in my self-defense to prevent harm?
Has a police force ever been convicted of failing to prevent a citizen criminal from killing another citizen? The best government is granted is the power to regulate and create a system of justice and that in itself does not forbid or preclude armed self-defense. This is a different issue than the Second Amendment as it is literally written.

I think moderation from the center balances things without destroying liberty or security and more importantly helps strengthens the delicate balance needed of Liberal Democracy. I thought this is what centrism endeavors to do..

Otherwise, we should call this place Outfield.

Posted by: Maxtrue at February 18, 2007 05:32 PM

I am saying that first stating, “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” implies the “reason” or logical justification for what follows; BECAUSE a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the “people” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If well regulated militias were the deliberate context in which the “people” are given a right, if no mention of the word “individual” is written, nor is “people” divorced from such context of a well organized militia in this particular amendment, then reason does follow that; -“individuals” with no connection to such Militia should not have this right to bear any arms.

That's a non sequitur. It's a truism that "first stating, 'a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' implies the 'reason' or logical justification for what follows," but what follows is this categorical command: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As I said above, you're trying to abstract from the right to the reason and then eliminate the right, and your interpretation would essentially deprive the second sentence of any practical force - you'd transform "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" into "the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed in some circumstances."

Trying to hang your collective right argument on the term "the people" is also unpersuasive: the Fourth Amendment states, inter alia, that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (emphasis added), but you would presumably not suggest that we do not have an individual right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The argument that state courts have upheld state bans on guns is beside the point: no matter how you answer the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against state governments, it is none-the-less a separate question to what restraints the Second Amendment places on the activities of the Federal government, to whose activities it certainly applies, see Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).

Also beside the point is the suggestion that I "would have a better chance advocating that STATES should have control of some nukes rather than the 'people' because this would help well organized Militias in resisting Federal tyranny," that is a separate question. First, "Should" implies obligation - the Second Amendment (unlike its distant forebear the Assize of Arms) does not require anyone to own a gun, it merely (at least) prevents the Federal government from banning said ownership. Second, nuclear weapons are, as I said above, a separate issue. Since you seemingly misunderstood this point the first time ("You make nukes a question separate from the Second"), I'll try to make it clearer: I'm not saying it's a separate issue to the Second Amendment, what I'm saying is that it's a Second Amendment question with no relevance to the Second Amendment question instantly at issue. Whatever the Second Amendment may say about WMD is irrelevant to the question of whether the Second Amendment protects the kind of weapons that you want to ban.

Your paragraph on abortion is also, in the main, beside the point. You're making normative arguments about whether abortion ought to be illegal or not. That is a debate that has nothing to do with Roe-Casey, which is a debate about what the Constitution of the United States says about abortion - to which the answer is clearly nothing, and as I said above, where the Constitution is silent, the question is a matter for the states.

As far as the commerce clause is concerned, that, too, is a separate issue. Whether Congress has authority to regulate abortion generally depends on how broadly you read the commerce power. As an original matter, I reject both Wickard and Katzenbach (although I would not at this stage overrule Katzenbach), so while I agree with you that under existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress likely does has that authority (while Lopez did not "scrap[] the substantial effects test," and although it "limited that test to activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce," A. Althouse, Inside the Federalism Cases, 574 Annals of the Am. Acad. 132, 137 (2001), I can see the argument that obtaining an abortion usually involves a commercial transaction, which would distinguish Lopez), I advocate limiting that authority - further than would some (see, e.g., Althouse, Enforcing Federalism After United States v. Lopez, 38 Ariz. L. Rev. 793, 816-23 (1996)) although not as far as others (see, e.g., Lopez, 514 U.S. at 584-602 (Thomas, concurring). And I have to live by the results of that view - if I think that the most honest, best-faith interpretation of the commerce clause deprives the national government of authority to ban something that I would dearly like to ban coast-to-coast, that's just too bad. The Constitution comes before policy considerations.

Posted by: Simon at February 18, 2007 06:13 PM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

February 16, 2007

He's a Liberal, I Don't Care