Hopes for the New Year and the New Session
By Steven Osborne | Saturday, January 1st, 2011 | Catch-All, Policy, PoliticsA new year is here and as usually is the case, people are making resolutions and operating on a “turn over a new leaf” kind of attitude.
One resolution that I am particularly heartened to hear about is the new Congressional resolution to have the Constution read at the opening of the new session. According to the Blue Ridge Caucus blog, associated with the Roanoke Times, Virginia’s own Bob Goodlatte and Ken Cuccinelli played a critical role in making this resolution a reality.
Now, obviously I realize that unless the words that are read are taken to heart this means nothing. However, this could serve as an indicator of things to come.
Perhaps the incoming Congress will begin the process of rebuilding our United States’ commitment to lower case r republican principles. In addition to reading the Constitution, I hope that they will take the time to read President George Washington’s farewell address, which can accurately be considered a primer of republican liberty and virtue.
It is my hope that the incoming Congress will take to heart the understanding of Washington’s farewell address that republican liberty and virtue are intertwined and one cannot survive without the other. That for a government to do its job in establishing order; liberty and justice must be inseparable.
I hope that they will not only know these principles but that they will act upon them in regards to the policy proposals that they put forward as well as the laws that they pass.
I am hopeful that Republicans will address the massive entitlement issues that our nation faces. That the monster of inflation will be addressed and our currency made more secure, that the Federal Reserve will not be implementing a QE3, and that Republican lawmakers will audit that aforementioned institution.
I am hopeful that Republicans will forcefully articulate why our President’s current foreign policy is not working, and that the American people realize that even if the economy naturally improves, the President’s foreign policy is reason enough to deny him a second term.
I also hope that Republicans will see that social issues affect fiscal ones. This November Mississippi will likely see a personhood initiative on the ballot. It is my hope that the initiative will be passed into law and Roe v. Wade challenged as bad precedent.
With the Republicans currently in control of only one house of Congress. I am aware that some battles may be lost despite the election victories of 2010. I am hopeful that Conservatives will not be disappointed at potential losses, but would only take potential upcoming defeats as motivation to simply push harder the next time the policy battle comes around. That in victory, Conservatives will not become complacent, but always motivated by the goal of rebuilding the walls of the Republic.
I am hopeful for this New Year with all its challenges and opportunities.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
10 Responses to "Hopes for the New Year and the New Session"
My New Years resolution was to continue smoking.
How about Republicans start working on the repeal of the tobacco tax instead of just being worried about taxes on the wealthy?
Is the Republican mantra now taxes except for taxes on the poor? We can’t increase taxes until they overly impact the poor?
More poor citizens smoke then do wealthy citizens. The wealthy listen to the doctors and have the health care coverage they think might provide eternal life. Poor citizens just say why not just enjoy the life I am given while I exist because everyone dies eventually.
Repeal the Death Tax? Bullshit, repeal the tobacco tax first.
LittleDavid, You should have been lobbying the Democrats, since they are the ones who raised the cigarette tax. Also, you should lobby all politicians not to use taxes as a tool to influence behaviour.
My New Year’s resolution is to keep a close eye on what Rigell does and to immediately complain when he deviates from what he has committed to doing.
Steven,
I’m fine with the reading of the Constitution at the beginning of the 112th Congress, but if the Republicans really want to return to the principles of the Founding Father than they would 1) require every member of Congress to actually read each piece of legislation before voting on it, and 2) prohibit ghost-writing of legislation by lobbyists.
And since you brought up George Washington’s Farewell speech, I would like to call your attention to these paragraphs:
Washington knew that political parties can be inherently undemocratic and that party rivalries can weaken the leadership of the republic. He warned us not to go there and we ignored his advice. Look where that has gotten us.
Finally, exactly how do “social issues affect fiscal ones”? Are you asserting that abortions are responsible for the budget deficit? Really? On the contrary, social issues are a distraction to dealing with fiscal issues. They are best left at church and not dragged out into the peoples’ legislature. If you are opposed to abortion, then don’t have one. But stay out of other people’s private business. It never ceases to amaze me how many Republicans profess to treasure personal freedom and self-responsibility and then feel free to legislate against access to a medical procedure by other people.
Some how I neglected to paste in the appropriate paragraphs of Washington’s Farewell:
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Jerry Z,
Actually I did quite a bit of “lobbying”. I was an outspoken opponent of the increase of the tobacco tax. I also wrote both of my Senators encouraging them to join a filibuster with my request being grounded in that Virginia is still a tobacco state and how our economy should not have to pay an unreasonably large portion of the costs of the increase.
It didn’t work. I seem to remember hearing how filibuster attempts fell one vote short etc etc. Actually the only Republican that ended up being responsible for delaying it for awhile was George Dubyah Bush with his veto. I didn’t often agree with Dubyah, but he won some points with me with that action. At least he was consistent unlike many other Republicans.
LD,
The tobacco tax is an excise tax, an inland tax designed to limit the consumption of specific products, just as a tariff or import tax is designed to limit the importation of specific products. An excise on products such as tobacco and alcohol date back to English Common Law and are older than the United States.
Your argument that the tobacco tax is an unfair burden on the poor holds no water. Our society as a whole spends approximately $50B per year on direct medical expenses related to tobacco use. Another $97B per year is lost in estimated GDP reduction due to the loss of productivity of tobacco users. Those who choose to use tobacco are both educated and affluent and uneducated and in lower economic strata. The common denominator is that they are addicted and unable or unwilling to deal with their addiction.
As John Wayne’s character Sgt. Stryker famously said, “Life is tough. It’s tougher if you’re stupid.”
@HisRoc
I am glad that you asked about specifically how social issues affect fiscal ones.
The Family Research Council addresses the specific ways that abortion affects our economy in the link below:
http://www.frcblog.com/2010/09/cost-of-abortion/
Also, the organization Renewing American Leadership has done a good job of compiling some very well written and well researched articles that dig into the question of how social issues affect fiscal ones.
Likewise, the Heritage Foundation has done extensive research on the connections between fiscal and social issues. You can access extensively researched and clearly written articles there as well.
I also take issue with your characterization of social conservatives as wanting to force morality on people. If you were to hold every group to the same standard as social conservatives, you could make the case that any and every law that we have ever passed is “forcing morality” on people. Every conceivable law that I can think of that could possibly be passed would involve some form of morality, or the lack thereof. We oppose murder, because we consider it to be immoral. While murder laws serve to secure the rights of one human being against the whims of another, the sense of justice under girding that principle is found in a sense of morality. Our rights are not unlimited, and when man begins to create for himself “rights” that do not exist, government will inevitably increase. Conservatives should seek to prevent this.
Lastly, I appreciate your citation of Washington’s warnings concerning the dangers of political parties. It is true that faction can be deadly for a nation. However, Washington never suggested that disagreements be done away with. On the contrary Washington helped to set the standard for republican government in the United States, and he faced stiff opposition from some very rabid opponents. Washington played politics just as all other Presidents have. That is the nature of republican government and it is not antithetical to what Washington was saying concerning factions.
I appreciate your comment though and I am glad that you seem to have read Washington’s farewell address.
Steven,
From what I have read of your citations, the arguments seem to center on the future contributions to the GDP that an aborted fetus would make. This is based on two false premises. First, that every aborted fetus would grow up to be a productive member of society, contributing to the economic productivity at or above the mean. Second, that over-population in of itself is beneficial to economic growth.
That is simply nonsense. It is counter-intuitive to believe that our budget deficits would dissolve if we had more teenage, single mothers producing children.
Comparing laws that proscribe murder and other immoral conduct with a law prohibiting abortion is a straw man. Abortion is an ethical and legal medical procedure. It is murder only in the viewpoint of those who would impose their own narrow definition of morality on others. You could make the same argument for outlawing tobacco consumption, alcohol use, red meat, and high-fat dairy products.
You state, “Our rights are not unlimited, and when man begins to create for himself “rights” that do not exist, government will inevitably increase.”
That is an ‘up-is-down, down-is-up’ argument. Government increases when it attempts to restricts rights. Using the premise that you are only restricting rights “that do not exist” is a non sequitur. BTW, despite your views on the subject, the Supreme Court has upheld this particular right and subsequent Courts with a conservative majority have refused to overturn that decision.
@HisRoc
“It is counter-intuitive to believe that our budget deficits would dissolve if we had more teenage, single mothers producing children.”
Why would that be counter-intuitive? I thought that you said that social and fiscal issues are not connected.
Steven,
coun·ter·in·tu·i·tive (koun t r- n-t -t v, -ty -). adj. Contrary to what intuition or common sense would indicate.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.