THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2008 ELECTION (CONT.)
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2008 ELECTION (CONT.)
By
Ken Eliasberg
Last week we looked at the importance of the 2008 election in a foreign policy context. This week, let’s examine the domestic-policy implications of the election. If I had to use but 2 words to dramatize the importance of the election, I would select SUPREME COURT. If I had to further elaborate on the domestic-policy implications of the election, and use but one word to do so, I would choose SOCIALISM. Quite simply, the left, an abysmal group of pseudo intellectuals and academic airheads, wants to turn us into “old” France (while “new” France is making a modest effort at turning itself into “old” America).
First, the Supreme Court, and here I include in the sweep of this term the entire Judiciary, for all of the Courts pose a danger to our way of life, particularly when they reside in the hands of a left-wing judge who sees his role as a mini legislator, i.e. he is not there to interpret law; he is there to invent it along the lines of his left-wing bent. While the importance of the lower courts cannot be underestimated — witness the recent decision of the California Supreme Court upholding gay marriage, despite the fact that, in a recent referendum on the subject, more than 60% of California’s voters indicated their opposition to such an approach to marriage — the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all judicial matters. And it is going to be very much in play in the next 4 years (and even more so in the next 8).
The Supreme Court is likely to have 2 vacancies over the next President’s first term in office. Which 2? First I would say is Justice Stevens who turns 88 this year, and, I get the impression, is just waiting for Bush to be out of office (despite the fact that he himself is a Republican appointee — Gerald Ford — but this is a subject for another column, i.e. the laxity with which Republicans apparently approach the vetting formality), and Justice Ginsburg who is 75 but not in the best health (having not too long ago wrestled with cancer). In addition 4 of the remaining 7 will be 70 years or older in the next President’s first term. This means that the next President will have the power to steer our ship of state through very troubled waters (making them more or less troubled, depending on the manner in which the appointees approach the discharge of their judicial responsibilities), and, for the sake of your grandchildren, you don’t want him steering them left.
By the way, the recent decision of the California Supreme Court on gay marriage is interesting and important in 2 respects; (1) not only did the Court disregard the clear expression of the will of the people, but (2) as previously noted, 6 of the 7 Justices were Republican appointees (indicating once again the laxity and inattention to detail with which Republican executives discharge their appointment duties).
The basic disagreement here really involves the left’s desire to span the divide created by our founders when they created our separation-of-power approach to government. That is, our founding fathers created three separate and independent branches of government, with each of the 3 playing separate and distinct roles in upholding and advancing the cause of the American Republic. And, it was clearly contemplated that these 3 separate and distinct branches of government were to serve as a check and balance on one another. This approach to our creation, more than any other, demonstrates the real genius of our founding fathers — they understood human nature, that man was not perfect and required an external and institutional check on the possibility of his giving in to the more craven aspects of his nature. The left — in sharp contrast — has always tried to advance the cause of the perfectibility of man, a conclusion that has been refuted by every single exercise in socialism. But that doesn’t stop the left — ergo, their ongoing effort to break down the separation of powers by empowering the judicial branch of government with legislative authority. And that has been their thrust since the days of FDR, who, in advancing this cause, sought to “pack” the Supreme Court (something that, if the Republicans sought to do it, would create a scream by Democrats that would be heard around the world). Ergo, the importance of the courts and their significance in the 2008 election.
And the paradoxical — and hypocritical — aspect of the left’s approach to government — i.e. socialism - is that it is so completely inconsistent with the manner in which they treat the common person — as one so stupid in the pursuit of his own affairs that he requires the assistance of government to conduct this very personal undertaking. Now why, I ask you, if the individual is so capable of perfection, does he need a monolithic bureaucratic monster 3,000 miles away to run his life?
Consistent with the left’s assault on the separation of powers aspect of our Republic is the even more insidious effort on their part to just junk the whole system in favor of old Europe’s (and Canada’s) approach to government, i.e. the cradle-to-grave welfare state. Will they own up to this? Of course not! Hell, they won’t even own up to being “liberal” (which in no sense of the true meaning of the word are they really). Do you recall John Kerry’s annoyance at being so labeled. And Barack Obama has vigorously run away from that label despite the National Journal’s determination that he has the most liberal record in the Senate. So, since they won’t even own up to the liberal label, do you really believe that they will own up to being Socialists — although that is exactly what they really are?
And where in the two policies — foreign and domestic — is each Party’s treatment of the military, i.e. the only thing standing between us and our annihilation? Everyone knows that the Dems cannot be trusted with our national security. Very few Presidents did more damage to the military than Bill Clinton, and, in return, very few were as loathed by the military as Bill Clinton. To have even for a moment thought of Hillary Clinton as the “Commnander-in-Chief” of our military is to sever completely one’s contact with reality.
In any event, that’s what’s on the table in 2008 — the future of your grandchildren!