Isn’t compromise what you are always bitching about? Living is the “real world” and such? So maybe a crazy, right-wing nut job, constitutional conservative wants to shrink the government (fucking crazy, I know). To get a 1990’s level of government spending and influence do you start there or aim for 1930’s?
When collectivists get “compromise” they don’t leave it at that, they keep pushing. They go for broke and chip away. The right should pay closer attention and follow suit.
Don’t assume when a conservative or libertarian talks about his wet dream that he expects to get it all in one shot (pun intended).
I haven’t seen any. There’s nothing obtuse about it. If you’re fine with 1990s level government, you’ve conceded certain aspects of the welfare state as here to stay.
I haven’t seen any such concession from “constitutional conservative” - have you?
That’s fine, again I ask - who is offering that up? I haven’t seen anyone do that. If they did, their commitment to “constitutional conservatism” would be questioned.
And again, it’s because of this emphasis on the “constitutional” part of their self-ascribed label - a policy that was “unconstitutional” in 1870 is just as “unconstitutional” in 1995.
In any event, Cruz isn’t offering that, and Rand Paul didn’t either.
Yes, it is, because it is measured by the metric if “constitutional” or not, which has no middle ground - not whether it’s bad policy that should be reversed incrementally over time.
The word “unconstitutional” means something beyond “stuff I think is bad or stupid policy”. It means it lacks legitimacy to even exist. Incremental fixes are inadequate for such problems.
Maybe the real problem is that CCs really have no clue about what the word means? That’s what I am thinking.
The issue isn’t cleverness or not - the point is I think a number of people would be ok with reverting back to 1990s levels of government. But I know many of those same people would not be ok with going as far as CCs want, which is to do away with modern social insurance programs and the like.
Incrementalism is fine, but it would have to stop at a point well before CCs would be comfortable, based on their ideas that, again, most modern federal laws of the modern era simply have no legitimate basis on which to even exist. And that’s what CCs are selling, not incrementalism.
No shit. But since the courts don’t care, there are two ways to work it back. Through slow progress at the federal level, which probably is a dead end and all the stuff we have been talking about is useless anyway. Or the non-incremental way, article 5 convention of the states.
Which method would be more palatable to the weak kneed moderates?
Have you read his “Five for Freedom” and “25 Federal ABCs” platforms in his website? That’s the incrementalism of “hey, let’s just roll back to the 1990s, it’s cool”?
Because like I said, you campaign to the wet dream. You campaign to the light at the end of the tunnel, what you are working toward. Most of us get that. We want to know that our goals are the same whether they can be met overnight or not.