Skip to content

Of Romney and Ratchets


Most every Administration since Washington’s has managed to grow the Federal government’s power, ratcheting leftwards one notch at a time. Coolidge’s seems to have been a noble and notable exception, and too, Reagan’s, in his own time. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Obama each managed to jam the wrench hard-left many notches apiece. (Apiece – as in “nasty” and “of work,” yeh? – Ed.)

We will not be satisfied until the Federal government’s size and power and cost are all of them dramatically reduced. One or two notch-backs won’t do it; Romney will be considered a miserable failure on the Constitution unless he works with Congress to undo the damage of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama epoch and restore us towards Liberty.

He and the Republicans had best not get cocky; This November will be far less than a Romney victory than it will be an Obama failure and a Tea Party success.

Shabbat shalom.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. 2012/09/10 03:12

    You may want to reconsider having added Lincoln to your list along with Wilson, FDR and Obama,

    • 2012/09/10 09:19

      Thanks, but you may wish to reconsider Lincoln.

      Guelzo misses the obvious: Without the evil of Lincoln’s forcible centralization of Federal power, the Progressive movement in America wouldn’t have been possible. The bullshit notion that “[neither] Lincoln nor his Administration was any model for today’s modern bureaucratic state” is true on it’s face only if one overlooks the destruction of Federalism that made Leviathan possible.

      Guelzo appears to have missed Lincoln’s multiple suspensions of Habeas Corpus, too.

      …and PLEASE don’t give us the junk about “war” being necessary to defeat slavery. Tocqueville had documented decades earlier the waining of the South due to it’s anti-liberty policies that would one day make it uncompetitive in the free market. Two generations later the South was hurting badly. It was only a matter of time.

      The main problem with revisionists is an uncritical audience. I’m rather surprised that Heritage let Guelzo post such amateur garbage.

  2. 2012/09/10 18:50

    The “matter of time” was until secession. It was inevitable and there is no way in hell the north was going to tolerate a hostile, foreign country on it’s southern border, allied with it’s enemies and in control of the Mississippi river. There’s an awful lot of revisionist stuff about the Civil War. I used to buy that shit about the war not being about slavery, but it simply doesn’t stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

  3. 2012/09/10 19:33

    Agreed. Certainly the CW was about slavery – in part. ( Didn’t claim it wasn’t, did I?) The slave-state economic model wasn’t efficient and it was failing ineluctably. That the trogs of the South permitted war with the North thinking that external hostility would solve the problem… that is all I argue here.

    And it indeed was about security for Northern states, as you point out.

    To be fair to Lincoln, whether it was “about” Lincoln’s power-grab, I don’t know or care much or claim it. Whether Lincoln intended the consequences or inadvertently fell into them matters little here. All I can know for certain is what happened to the structure of Federalism. What matters is that the stage was set for the eventual, massive centralization of power.

    The ideas of Bismarck and Engels and Marx and the 19th Century’s bold European new-statists had plenty of fertile soil on this side of the pond.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: