"Today's lesson is: 'Long Pham, we need a place to put Robert Hammond so we don't split the vote for Daly in AD-69, so you're off of the County School Board!'"
In the critical race for the District 1 seat for the Orange County Board of Education, we have now learned that … what? You don’t even know what the Orange County Board of Education is? Let’s start there, then.
The OC Department of Education
(skip this section if you want to get right to the politics)
Well, it runs the Orange County Department of Education. (You don’t know what that is either? We’ll get to that.) It has five Districts, as reflected on this map. You’ll see that the 1st District is represented by Long Pham, Ph.D., who defied the prediction I made here almost a month ago that he would drop out of the 72nd A.D. race and instead dropped out of this one.
What does it do specifically, you may ask? Here’s what they have to say (combining different pages):
The Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) serves as the center for educational leadership and coordination, providing the broadest possible services for over 500,000 children and young adults in the schools of Orange County. The Department is responsible for interpretation and enforcement of state laws as directed by the Legislature, the State Board of Education, and the California Department of Education. In addition, OCDE partners with families, businesses, and the community to promote student success and well-being in Orange County.
With more than 1,700 full- and part-time employees, OCDE provides cost-effective, centralized services, including Alternative and Correctional Education, Outdoor Science, Career Technical Education Partnership, Special Education, Child Care Services, and Student Programs. OCDE serves more than 160,000 students and is Dedicated to World Class Education…Where Every Student Succeeds.
We partner with Orange County school districts to provide over 500,000 students with a world class education that emphasizes standard-based skills in safe learning environments.
We serve as a connecting agency among Orange County school districts, community college districts, local, state and federal governmental agencies, and community organizations. We respond to district and community requests for staff development, administrative, business, educational and support services.
I think of OCDE as in some ways being the equivalent of the County Sheriff’s office compared to your city’s police department (if you have one) in that it directly manages some educational services that falls outside of local control. But it also, as shown above, deals with a lot of specific programs (technical ed, special ed, alternative ed, correctional ed) that are very important to a lot of people. And don’t overlook that it coordinates between school districts (at all levels, including community colleges) and within the county it interprets and enforces laws and regulations coming from higher levels. It’s a mixed portfolio — but a significant one, especially when it comes to local implementation of education policy.
And that brings us to Robert Hammond.
Bringing down the Hammond
Chris Nguyen at GOP House Outlet OC Poli-tickle posted a breathless and triumphant statement yesterday stating that “the Democrats’ worst case scenario” had arrived. This scenario is: Robert Reid, a newly minted Democrat, is running in AD-74, apparently being rooted on by Republicans who want the Allan Mansoor-Leslie Daigle financial bloodbath to end in June rather than November, and will get enough of the vote to make the runoff. (Republicans still don’t know about the write-in candidate.) Meanwhile, only Democrats will be on the ballot in the AD-69 primary, guaranteeing that November will see a debilitating Democrat-on-Democrat runoff fight. (Of course, Tony Bushala has already informed us in a comment that “Pretty Fly White Guy” Tom Daly had the support of the Republican party anyway, so this is not exactly news. It will be Daly vs. a Latino — barring, um, scandal.)
Nguyen continues:
Orange County Board of Education Member Long Pham is partly to thank for this event. Pham’s bid for the 72nd Assembly District left his seat on the County Board vacant. Republican Robert Hammond had been running for AD-69, heavily on education issues, including overturning SB 48 and enhancing career technical education programs. Indeed, Hammond has been a teacher since he completed his service in the Marine Corps and earned his college degrees. With the solidly conservative Pham vacating the OCBE’s Central Orange County seat, that left conservatives searching for a candidate to succeed Pham.
Conservatives quickly turned to one of the most passionate conservative education advocates in Central Orange County – Robert Hammond. With Hammond’s deep knowledge of and passion for education issues, he is well-suited to be the conservative standard bearer for the Central OC seat on the OCBE.
Yeah … maybe. Or it may be more like “Long, we need to get Hammond out of this race so we can elect Daly as our crypto-Republican in the Assembly. You’re off of the School Board.” Same difference, same effect. As for Hammond “running … heavily on education issues” — well, read on.
Despite the above claim, the Issues Page on Hammond’s Assembly campaign website does (or did — or does, given that it’s still up) not focus much on education issues directly. Still, it gives one a good sense of what he’s about politically (and why he was never a particularly strong threat to win the AD-69 race):
My priorities in Sacramento are to introduce and attempt to pass the following:
- Tax Incentives: provide tax breaks for businesses and people by cutting payroll taxes and capital gains tax, cutting in half the sales tax and vehicle registration taxes; and,
- Elected Salary Reduction: Reduce the salary of every elected state official in the Legislative and Executive branches by twenty-five percent (25%), move the Legislature to part-time, and use this money to help start the process to balance the state budget; and I will lead by example by donating 25% of my salary to charities in our community until the salary cuts are instituted; and,
- Property Tax Breaks: Roll back Property Taxes for home owners to be the same as those who enjoy the benefits and protection of Prop 13; and,
- Free Enterprise Education Bill: make it mandatory for our Middle and High Schools to teach our children about Free Enterprise, the tax breaks associated with business ownership, and how to start a small business while looking for mentorship; and,
- Education: Increase vocational training in high schools to give our students more options in career paths.
Republicans talk about reaching out to the different communities in Orange County. I have already started to reach out to some of the communities within the 69th Assembly District. I will reach out to families to show them how to take advantage of tax breaks through business ownership.
With my devotion to protecting our country, diligence in teaching our youth, and understanding of our need for limited government for our state, I will serve the people of the 69th Assembly District in Sacramento with integrity, values, and knowledge so as to reduce our state government and offer a helping hand up, not a handout, to all those who want more for themselves and their posterity.
Hammond’s press release, which Tickle reproduces in full, is reproduced here as well, but with annotations in blue:
Robert Hammond Enters Orange County Board of Education Race
SANTA ANA, CA – At the urging of conservative activists and leaders across the county [“Get out of the race, you distraction; you are messing up our chance to elect Tom Daly!], Robert Morris Hammond has entered the race for Orange County Board of Education, Trustee Area 1. The seat is being vacated by the incumbent, fellow conservative Republican Long Pham, who is now running for the 72nd Assembly District.
“Education has always been one of my great passions. After completing my service in the United States Marine Corps and earning my college degrees, I became a teacher,” Hammond said. “I’ve taught in special education, English Immersion classes, teacher training programs, and adult literacy courses.” [“Hence the entire sentence one aspect of education policy merited on my pretty long issues page!”]
Hammond has long campaigned on education issues, emphasizing faith, family, and freedom. [I’m not sure what “family” and “freedom” are intended to mean here, other than probably an attack on organized labor because that’s what vague buzzwords usually mean, but “faith” in this context often seems to mean things like trying to push science education out of the curriculum “because God wants a warmer planet, as befits its young age.” I look forward to Hammond setting that record straight.] He has also worked on efforts to overturn SB 48. [This is the bill Brown recently signed that mandates that the history of the gay rights movement be included in high school curriculum, as apparently it matters.] As an Orange County Board of Education member, Hammond will be able to fight the implementation of SB 48 in the schools overseen by the OCBE. [By the way, when people yell at me about the Occupy movement engaging in civil disobedience, I always think of examples like this. “Some civil disobedience is more equal than other civil disobedience,” I guess.] SB 48 and increasing career technical education had been two major issues that drove Hammond to run for office.
“It is with great reluctance that I withdraw from the 69th Assembly District race, but after Dr. Pham filed for the 72nd Assembly District on Thursday, numerous conservatives urged me to enter the race for Dr. Pham’s seat,” Hammond added. “We were all concerned that Dr. Pham’s seat could fall into liberal hands [YES! And ones that won’t bust unions, suppress teaching of evolution, and relegate gays to the closet, too!], and with Trustee Area 1 covering much the same territory as AD-69, many concerned conservative citizens and leaders asked me to consider entering the race for the Orange County Board of Education, which I have now done. I look forward to a vigorous campaign and victory in June.”
Orange County Board of Education, Trustee Area 1 covers Santa Ana, Tustin, Garden Grove (east of Beach Boulevard), and Fountain Valley (east of the 405 freeway).
The Battle is Joined
So, residents of Santa Ana, Tustin, and relevant portions of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley — is this what you want? Beyond that, is NO CHOICE IN JUNE what you want? If not, then one good Democrat (or non-partisan, or even Jack Bedell-like moderate Republican) needs to get over to the Registrar of Voters and prepare to run for this office. I’m sure that AD-69 candidates Perez, Martinez, and Barragan will endorse you — and one would think that a Democrat like Tom Daly would do so too. (Wouldn’t one?)
It should be one and only one opponent, to keep from splitting this “California ain’t Alabama” vote, so feel free to discuss whose hat should be tossed into the ring in comments.
And thanks again to the Tickle for calling this vacancy to my attention!
UPDATE, 3/13
As noted below, we now have four apparent candidates for the office, presuming that Anita Mathur (who took out but had not turned in her papers previously) isn’t pursuing the office:
– Ken Nguyen (whom one commenter here says is a Democrat and another says is a member of the Van Tran Clan)
– Robert Hammond (establishment Republican lured out of AD-69 race)
– Arturo “Art” Pedroza (insurgent libertarian Latino LibertariaRepubliCrat with colorful history)
– Eleazar Guardiola Elizondo (an apparent Latino Democrat, described in a comment below)
And that, dear readers, is why I included a question mark in the title!
So if you’re handicapping based on race/ethnicity + party, as seems now to be the OC custom, you have Hammond picking up the Anglo Republicans (mostly Tustin); Nguyen picking up almost everyone in the (largely Viet) portions of Garden Grove and Fountain Valley; Elizondo picking up non-Viet Democrats; and Pedroza picking up libertarians of all stripes and locations as well as readers of New Santa Ana and OCPolitics (some of them, anyway.) I’ll say that there’s no clear frontrunner yet, because saying otherwise would require a map, reference material, and a calculator.
What makes you think Jack Bedell is a moderate? Bedell is a flaming Dick Ackerman liberal.
Don’t say “Dick Ackerman liberal,” Tony; it prevents communication. “Liberal” means something beyond “free-spending” and it doesn’t mean most of what Ackerman stands for. “Dick Ackerman corrupt Republican,” if you want, makes the point.
I tried to gin up a Democratic opponent to Bedell on general principles and got no traction within the party. Apparently, people think that he does a good job on education issues and would be a bulwark for basic rationality if yahoos came to dominate the board.
What has he done that you think is so terrible — and if so why didn’t you find an opponent for him?
No, Ackerman is a liberal. So is Bedell.
You mustn’t confuse political philosophy with party affiliation – it prevents communication.
Who on earth cares about the County Board of Education?
Let’s just not use the word liberal. That prevents communication.
To you it means something bad – wastefulness, unaccountability, a symbiotic relationship with big government. Hence Ackerman by your definition qualifies.
To me (and probably Greg) it means something good – it derives from a root that means both “Liberty” and “generosity,” but should not lead to wastefulness or unaccountability. DEMOCRACY is a liberal idea, our Founding Fathers were liberal, and the Ackerman cabal is anti-democratic.
In the state senate Ackerman held the line against many things good liberals want – single-payer healthcare, or any kind of healthcare reform that inconveniences Big Pharma and Big Insurance; reform of the Prison-Industrial Complex, efforts to clean up the environment. So no, he is no damn liberal, and me and Greg oughtta know because WE ARE.
Real liberals wouldn’t protect the murderers of Kelly Thomas. Look at our mutual friend Baxter. And Jane Rands. THOSE are real liberals.
So, for now, between the few of us, let’s not even use the word. Let’s say progressive. You’d agree Ackerman’s not a PROGRESSIVE, I’d assume?
“…but should not lead to wastefulness or unaccountability.”
Lol!
LOL?
Should not. Just like being conservative should not lead to being racist, or hung up about gays or women’s autonomy, or getting behind the drug war, or being a Birther, or otherwise generally having a stick up your ass. Wouldn’t you agree with that, Tony?
I’d have to separate those out, Tony. Absolutely yes when it comes to accountability. When it comes to “wastefulness”? In an ideal world, yes, but there will always be some waste. In physics it’s called “friction”; in economics it’s called a “transaction cost.”
I am anti-corruption and pro-accountability, which takes care of a lot of the problem. I also, though, recognize that it makes no sense to spend $100 to hunt down a $10 piker — unless doing so deters other pikers from doing the same but doesn’t deter people from taking advantage of services they need or give those controlling the tap the right to coerce and exploit those receiving services.
The biggest wastefulness is in the failure to allow (and sometimes help) people to reach their fullest potential. Kids dead from malnutrition or tainted food; that’s wastefulness. If it doesn’t fit into your personal definition, then I think you make your moral life too easy on yourself — which is the only way I think you can lump together someone like me or Vern with someone like Ackerman.
Conservatism need not tend to racism. In fact some folk see patronizing liberalism, er, progressivism as being racist. I leave that for greater minds to ponder.
Big government leads to big waste, and ultimately to entropic dysfunction.
Why is it that 45 years after the start of the War on Poverty the percentage of poor people is virtually the same? Could it be wastefulness and unaccountability? Or maybe it’s because the poverty line is drawn by bureaucrats at a certain percentile?
“Progressives” argue that it’s because we haven’t spent enough.
Well, Tony, “some folks” are idiots. I’m off to an E-Board meeting; more later.
Hey, who won the Presidential election in 1980? Any fallout from that? What was happening to poverty rates before that sea change?
Curious? Or incurious?
Show me the statistics.
Vern said: “our Founding Fathers were liberal”
Our Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals Vern – BIG difference my friend.
John Trenchard & Thomas Gordon, (Classical Liberal thinkers) probably the most cited source on political ideas in the American colonies wrote,
“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labour, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property. A character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent” (Cato’s Letters, No. 62).
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?142581-Classical-liberalism-vs-Modern-liberalism
Yeah I know all about Thomas Gordon, John Trenchard and Cato’s Letters; I told OUR Tom Gordon about them.
You had to reach, to some little-remembered Scottish pamphleteers of the early 1700s, to find a passage against any and all taxation – to try to prove that our liberal Founding Fathers have nothing in common with this century’s liberals.
I’d be more impressed if you found something in the voluminous writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, et al, holding that one’s own democratically elected government has no right to collect needed revenue thru taxation. You won’t.
Who cares about the OCBE?
Right there, Tony, is why you don’t understand the difference between liberals and non-libertarian conservatives.
Do you care whether evolution is taught in schools? That’s not an economic issue — but it divides me from Ackerman types.
Do you care whether we have adequate educational services for kids who can’t make it through normal school? That one may put me on the opposite side of both you and Ackerman.
And all of this — it’s political philosophy too!
What curriculum authority does the OC Board of Education have? Please be specific.
Mandates for special ed come from the State. Let’s not get all weepy over this.
I heard a presentation on this a few weeks back; it was greater than I had thought.
Mandates come from the state; interpretation and implementation are local. That’s a whole lot of power.
“Do you care whether evolution is taught in schools?”
Let’s talk about intelligent design Greg – that should be fun.
Your serve!
I’ve received a private e-mail in response to this that asked a simple question: Why not Phu Nguyen?
My answer was along the lines of, “well, it’s because, um, because he, well … actually, he’d be great for this, wouldn’t he?”
So does anyone out there know (or is anyone able to find out) whether Phu Nguyen has any interest in this position and, if so, how he might be encouraged to run?
(Or express your displeasure at the prospect, if you want, but be prepared to show your work.)
Yes, please encourage me. 😉
As I’m trying elsewhere to verify your identity, I’ll presume that you’re who you say you are and ask here: what would it take?
I’m confident that three of the four council candidates would definitely want you making appearances with them at joint events and would love to see you attain an office that in turn would help you attain a higher office. (I’m not sure about Daly, if he’s seeking the Republican vote, but I doubt he’d do any worse than stay neutral.) You’d also be good at the tasks before this board. And I think that you would stomp Robert Hammond in Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana with little effort. (You might have to work a little harder in Tustin.)
Many of us were sorry to see you not on the ballot this year. Here’s a chance to recoup! And that board could certainly use you
Yes, it is him, Greg. Correct e-mail plus I just called him. And he says he thinks there are two others in the race, including a Viet.
Yes there are two other in the Race. One is Ken Nguyen, I believe he is a moderate Democrat. I met him at Lorretta’s Halloween Party. he is on the Parks and Recreation Commission in Santa Ana.
I predict he will win the seat.
Hammon is to radical.
Dunno. With most people saying, with Bushala, “WTF is that position?” It’s non-partisan, right? So being a Dem doesn’t hurt or help Ken. Being a Viet helps him with Viets and nobody else. If everyone but hardcore in-the-know Reeps skips voting for that position then Hammond’s in.
That’s right, dog; I forgot that he just qualified on Saturday. The second person other than Hammond has taken out papers but not yet filed.
Vern, the solution is easy: whenever Perez or Martinez or Barragan appear in Santa Ana, they’ll have to have Ken Nguyen with them. Hammond won’t have that sort of advantage. Daly, to keep Democratic votes, should support Nguyen as well — but that means that he risks alienating Republicans. Tricky play for him!
Of course, that’s just Santa Ana. He can also appear with Dovinh in GG & FV and with Sukhee Kang and Steve Young in Tustin. Hammond can’t really hitchhike on much, by contrast, because John Campbell and Don Wagner don’t campaign. (Walters will, though.)
Don’t be fooled. This agency controls MILLIONS of dollars of discrecionary $$$$ of public funds. I am suprised Cunningham hasn’t gone for a peice of this easy money yet.
This seemingly obscure department is replicated 58 times over in California…….in addition to the 999 school districts.
Dig into this one and Bush(la) will have a heart attack. It is the tar pit of public funds……
But nobody who votes gives a shit about the 17th name on the ballot……….A name that represents the deciding vote on a 37 million dollar contract for…..whiteboards???
Ken Nguyen is not a Democrat he is part of the Van Tran crew and I think he is either a Repuglican or NPP voter. We need somebody who is a solid Democrat, and Phu Nguyen would be that man.
“Repuglican?”
The Bushala is strong with this one.
I just heard that a Santa Ana Councilmember is likely to pull papers today for this seat. Phu would still be the best candidate for the Democrats to rally around.
Dems would, at minimum, still need a Plan B. (Or Plans C and D too.) Which Councilmember, Masked Man? (Or woman?)
Tinajero (the progressive, well-respected teacher) or
BustamanteBenavides (the community organizer) would be great!Next time Phu runs for something, I want him to NGUYEN! And I don’t see that happening with another well-known Democrat and another Viet (albeit Trannie) in the race.
Bustamante does have that “little problem,” though; maybe this would be a decent pasture for him to go to. I hate to even have to ask this, but: does he believe in teaching evolution? What about teaching GLBT history, per state SB 48 mandate?
FUCK I wrote Bustamante – I meant pinche Benavides! How embarrassing! Why can’t at least one of them be O’Malley or something?
My sense is that Benavides has a decent voting record, but he also comes from a religious service background, right? I’d want to make sure that he’s good on science teaching as well. I would like to think that he is, but it’s worth checking.
No worries Tony. I’m pulling my papers right now. There will be at least one Libertarian in this race.
The odd thing is that I could actually imagine supporting Art for such a position, depending on the competition. I don’t presume that he’d legislate in the same way that he blogs. How ya like them apples, Art?
Of course, it would depend on the competition.
If it can’t be Phu Nguyen I will support Eleazar Elizondo, he is the only Democrat in this race.
Yeah Art – and there will be at least one asshole in the race who divulges personal information on his website and encourages the harrassment of his family. That asshole would be you Art.
Sigh. Again Mike you thought it was FUNNY when Dan C. sent anonymous, threatening packages to Sean Mill. Why wasn’t it funny then when we found your address online and posted it? Not so funny after all, in either case, was it Mike?
Listen you fucker, I never said it was funny. And even if I did, that would not give you the right to purposely endanger my family. Who the hell do you think you are? You are insane.
Vern – Sorry to pollute your blog with the ravings of madman Art Pedroza.
I didn’t like when Dan sent Sean that anonymous package; he should have included his name, especially when it had a note on it that could have been construed as threatening.
And worse is publicizing the identity of an anonymous commenter so that they can be harassed in person.
And even worse is people saying “Hey, those people did it, so it’s cool when I do it!” How Republican.
That’s all we’ll say here about this today.
Yeah, that’s all we’ll say about it today except that “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”
(Damn, Vern — that filter you installed really works!)
Why when I say FUCK it always gets sensored.
This is a GOLDMINE of a job, if you have a kid in college that can come out with a liberal arts degree and start a……Calendar business for kindergarten, a copier company to back you or if you are REALLY REALLY lucky get a testing corporation or Text book publisher behind you, You’ll never have to worry about Jr. coming back home.
There is about $30 MILLION DOLLARS on the street right now in open bids. Thats money lying on the floor. WHO’S GONNA PICK IT UP?
the guy who gets his boy elected to the OCBOE!
I think that we should make you our Special Correspondent on OCBOE, KLND!
Yeah, but I just saw how I spelled censored. VN would be working overtime editing spelling, bad jokes and profanity.
Except I LIKED how you spelled sensored!
The latest update from the Registrar shows that, although Ken Nguyen remains the only candidate qualified for the ballot as yet, three new candidates have entered the suddenly exciting OCBOE District 1 race this week:
– Robert Hammond (as discussed above)
– Arturo “Art” Pedroza (as discussed often)
– Eleazar Guardiola Elizondo
Eleazar who? My research shows this:
– Owner, Elizondo Communications and Public Relations and Communications Consultant (for over 13 years)
– Mater Dei High School
– Orange Coast College (AA)
– Chapman University (BA)
– Cal State Fullerton (MA, Pol Sci, 1998-2000)
– Friend through Linked In with Lou Delgado
And, he ran for Santa Ana City Council, Ward 6, in 2002. Here’s his statement:
Doesn’t sound half-bad so far! A Latino Democrat? We’ll continue to explore.
Vern said, in effect: “.. try to prove that our liberal Founding Fathers have nothing in common with this century’s liberals.”
Modern liberals do not support the individualism of classical liberals, the Founding Fathers (FF). Instead appeals are often made to the common good (or “public good”, or “public welfare”) as opposed to the good of the individual. The common good is seen as a higher claim that overrides the individual’s claim to his life, liberty, or estate. This language too, of “public good,” is borrowed from the classical liberals (FF) but with a different meaning.
Classical liberals (FF) held that all the acts of government are “to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people” (Locke), but “public good” was meant as opposed to the government acting in the government’s good, and not as opposed to the individual.
On the contrary, “public good” referred to the individual, “the good of every particular member of that society” in his natural rights, and thus “the sword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone.” The point was that the government may only protect the natural rights of the individual—to protect his life, liberty, and estate. To act on behalf of some collective good as a higher claim than that of the individual’s is to act contrary to the “public good” of the classical liberals (FF) —contrary to natural law, because it violates the principle of equality before the law.
I’ll respond in good time, but you really should give your citations when you lift three paragraphs. Is that still “theologyweb?” (Interesting source when the topic at hand is public education.)
Firstly, it’s absurd for anyone to lump all the Founders in under any single political philosophy. If you’re suggesting that all the Founders were “small government” advocates, then you need to read some more history.
Secondly, our history is replete with Congress “acting on behalf of some collective good.” And our history is also replete with many, in fact most of those acts coming under judicial review and being found Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, conservatives are left with the reality that the Founders actually wrote a somewhat vague Constitution that granted substantial powers to Congress. Powers that have largely been upheld by the Supreme Court. In some ways, conservatives rail against the very system the Founders created…so much for their reverence for the Founders.
Not to mention that the Founders set up a system such that their personal will could be superseded in the future — as happened, for example, with the Civil War amendments. But it’s so much easier for conservatives to talk about the Founders as if they actually had been stupid and shortsighted enough to try to enshrine all of their political beliefs in stone.
“.. conservatives .. talk about the Founders as if they actually had been stupid and shortsighted enough to try to enshrine all of their political beliefs in stone.”
Not really, I understand and appreciate Jefferson when he said:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
I appreciate your appreciation of Jefferson’s quote and I would further appreciate your applying that appreciation in appreciable amounts.
“If you’re suggesting that all the Founders were “small government” advocates ..”
Not exactly – I am suggesting that the Founders were “limited government” advocates and that we need to get closer to that principle.
And who is arguing for unlimited government? Well — Santorum, perhaps, in the bedroom, but who else?
You use the word “limited.” I used the word “small.” It’s a distinction without a difference. We know what you mean.
I do note, however, that while you don’t use the word “all”, your choice of phrasing is certainly generalized enough to lead me to conclude that you feel that “all” the Founders wanted “limited” government. That just simply is not the case. Some of the Founders looked into the future, saw that this could become quite a large country with many states vying for their own interests, and therefore felt the need for a very strong, robust Federal government. More Federal power and less State power. They certainly didn’t advocate for the type of “limited” government you’re talking about.
There is a difference between “small” and “limited” anon – I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.
I am well aware of the Federalist vs. anti-Federalist positions in the forming of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The chief worry of the anti-Federalists was that the states would lose influence with the growth in the national government’s power. Yup – about like now.
That was the chief worry of the slave states, anyway. For a nice review of Anti-Federalist positions, I recommend my old friend and campaign colleague Woody Holton’s book “Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution”, which among other things describes Abigail Adams’s obsession with speculation in debt instruments. Wild stuff.
Anyway: other Anti-Federalists had different concerns, such as with civil liberties. I have to ask you, skally: do you consider Marbury and McCulloch to be settled law by now? If not, how many more centuries will it take?
Yet conservatives continue to mythologize the Founders as if they were all Anti-Federalists. Well, at least you got around to admitting that they weren’t.
This debate has raged since our very founding. The debate we’re having now is the exact same debate. And yet we’re supposed to believe that somehow government has become so perverted that it bears no resemblance to what the Founders intended. If you don’t see that contradiction, there’s not much else I can say.
“I appreciate your appreciation of Jefferson’s quote and I would further appreciate your applying that appreciation in appreciable amounts.”
I would also appreciate a tad bit less sillyness on your part Mr. D.
I think Greg meant that you should read that Jefferson quote and take it to heart, because you seem not to have.
You’ll get used to me in time, skally.