If there were intellectual honesty on the right, it would go something like this:
- We believe in reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of govt. Therefore, we will work with our legislative majority to propose a series of bills that will accomplish our goals.
- We don't believe our country should have birthright citizenship. Therefore, we will begin the process to propose and get ratified an amendment to the 14th Amendment in the Constitution.
- We believe Social Security obligations need to be reduced through privatization and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to accomplish this.
- We think we should utilize more of our federal lands and national parks for drilling, mining and lumbering and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to accomplish this.
- We want to deport undocumented criminals in our country and will work within the due process rules in our Constitution to accomplish this.
They keep talking about their objectives and conveniently skipping over their unlawful methods. They have the presidency and a compliant legislative branch, so let them follow the law to achieve their goals.
And the reason they don't do this? They don't have the votes or the support of the public to take these actions. So their argument is really "We can't accomplish what we want because there is not enough public or legislative support so we will take action outside the constitution." There is a name for that and it is not democracy.
I agree with your position about the proper constitutional means to achieve the right’s ends. Although I disagree with these ends, at least they should honor the democratic processes in their attempts to achieve them. But they won’t. Because of their innate authoritarianism, arrogance, power, and disdain for accountability. And there’s not a small element of sadism and cruelty in their efforts to punish and destroy their ideological opponents…
I’m with you. I don’t agree with their objectives but I acknowledge their right to hold those beliefs. I vehemently object to their achieving them by dismissing the Constitution. I
Okay, we all can see, the National Review is on board with autocracy. Trump's authoritarianism offers the right an opportunity to "win" long term by unconstitutional means. With the National Review's original editorial and their response to Mike's critique, the right's moral weakness, its surrender to Trump's temptation, is fully exposed. Congressional Republican support for autocracy has been implicit in their inaction, going back to the Senate's failure to convict Trump for 1/6 insurrection. Now we know they are explicitly standing on unAmerican, unconstitutional ground.
“This is precisely the dangerous sleight of hand my original piece identified. Of course judges can err—even grievously. Of course constitutional tensions exist between branches. But the remedy in our system has never been for the executive to simply ignore judicial orders it finds inconvenient or incorrect. The remedy is appeal, legislation, constitutional amendment, or even impeachment—not defiant”
Exactly! They are using the constitution to undermine their own position, and the Constitution itself. It’s no different than when Trump and his minions, use the flaws in our democracy, to undermine it; turning our country into an authoritarian kakistocracy! IMHO!..:)
I think the big thing here is that he read your article and it clearly bothered him. Because you were right. That was evident in his response which was filled with more of his twisted words and meaning.
In Ray Bradbury’s book “Fahrenheit 451”, Mildred wears “seashells” in her ears which create an "electronic ocean of sound" to drown out reality. Methinks The National Review suffers from the seashell syndrome. Perhaps their editorial board has been advised to stay in the middle lane, rather than express the truth about our current reality.
THIS Lynda agrees with Linda Lee Sand: you struck a nerve. My initial reaction when reading Dan’s article was he sounded bitter.
BTW: I’m glad your writing is being seen outside of Substack. And, I would embrace with pride the description of ‘Substack writer’. Daily, I continue to be impressed with the thinking minds that show up here.
I believe Danny boy engaged in the practice of listening just enough to reply; or to Insult and then restate his original thought. This marks him as a narcissist and lacking in intellect. I too have noticed the influx of the "others". It was so nice before they discovered this fresh new platform. I recommend blocking them.
“But the remedy in our system has never been for the executive to simply ignore judicial orders it finds inconvenient or incorrect. The remedy is appeal, legislation, constitutional amendment, or even impeachment—not defiance that renders judicial review meaningless.”
We can improve and “update” aspects of our Constitution not dismantle and destroy it.
Will all of the Trump lawlessness put “LAW AS BUSINESS “ out of work? What secures his installed EXTREME COURT when every now & again they disagree with him? What about immunity for his MUSKRATS invading and interfering with government operations?
Also, I have no earthly idea how you made this connection from McLaughlins statement on the courts usurpation of power. "He's suggesting that because judicial overreach is difficult to remedy constitutionally, extra-constitutional remedies become justified." What?! He never ever ever said that. He never said that. That's said nowhere. Implied nowhere. *Face palm*
If I sound too strong out of nowhere I apologize. I just legitimately consider National Review a group of authors who disagree routinely and yet somehow mete out good deliberations on issues and side for or against no politicians unconditionally. It is a refreshing breath of fresh air and I just get a bit overly defensive when it's undercut, and in my view, undercut badly.
Mike, the reason you think it's avoiding an editorial is because there was nothing "there" for McLaughlin to respond to. Also, can we please erase from our entire vocabulary and cultural dialogue any variation or repetition of the phrase, "let's be clear?" In the last 12 years that phrase has been beaten into the ground as some pseudo-authoritative way of saying "I'm declaring for you right now the absoluteness of my statements, thereby rendering dissent obsolete and useless." Please.
If there were intellectual honesty on the right, it would go something like this:
- We believe in reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of govt. Therefore, we will work with our legislative majority to propose a series of bills that will accomplish our goals.
- We don't believe our country should have birthright citizenship. Therefore, we will begin the process to propose and get ratified an amendment to the 14th Amendment in the Constitution.
- We believe Social Security obligations need to be reduced through privatization and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to accomplish this.
- We think we should utilize more of our federal lands and national parks for drilling, mining and lumbering and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to accomplish this.
- We want to deport undocumented criminals in our country and will work within the due process rules in our Constitution to accomplish this.
They keep talking about their objectives and conveniently skipping over their unlawful methods. They have the presidency and a compliant legislative branch, so let them follow the law to achieve their goals.
And the reason they don't do this? They don't have the votes or the support of the public to take these actions. So their argument is really "We can't accomplish what we want because there is not enough public or legislative support so we will take action outside the constitution." There is a name for that and it is not democracy.
I agree with your position about the proper constitutional means to achieve the right’s ends. Although I disagree with these ends, at least they should honor the democratic processes in their attempts to achieve them. But they won’t. Because of their innate authoritarianism, arrogance, power, and disdain for accountability. And there’s not a small element of sadism and cruelty in their efforts to punish and destroy their ideological opponents…
I’m with you. I don’t agree with their objectives but I acknowledge their right to hold those beliefs. I vehemently object to their achieving them by dismissing the Constitution. I
Okay, we all can see, the National Review is on board with autocracy. Trump's authoritarianism offers the right an opportunity to "win" long term by unconstitutional means. With the National Review's original editorial and their response to Mike's critique, the right's moral weakness, its surrender to Trump's temptation, is fully exposed. Congressional Republican support for autocracy has been implicit in their inaction, going back to the Senate's failure to convict Trump for 1/6 insurrection. Now we know they are explicitly standing on unAmerican, unconstitutional ground.
The National Review doth protest too much, methinks. You hit a nerve, Mike. Popped their self-(serving, righteous, indulgent) bubble.
“This is precisely the dangerous sleight of hand my original piece identified. Of course judges can err—even grievously. Of course constitutional tensions exist between branches. But the remedy in our system has never been for the executive to simply ignore judicial orders it finds inconvenient or incorrect. The remedy is appeal, legislation, constitutional amendment, or even impeachment—not defiant”
Exactly! They are using the constitution to undermine their own position, and the Constitution itself. It’s no different than when Trump and his minions, use the flaws in our democracy, to undermine it; turning our country into an authoritarian kakistocracy! IMHO!..:)
I think the big thing here is that he read your article and it clearly bothered him. Because you were right. That was evident in his response which was filled with more of his twisted words and meaning.
He heard you. And he knows it.
Bingo !
In Ray Bradbury’s book “Fahrenheit 451”, Mildred wears “seashells” in her ears which create an "electronic ocean of sound" to drown out reality. Methinks The National Review suffers from the seashell syndrome. Perhaps their editorial board has been advised to stay in the middle lane, rather than express the truth about our current reality.
THIS Lynda agrees with Linda Lee Sand: you struck a nerve. My initial reaction when reading Dan’s article was he sounded bitter.
BTW: I’m glad your writing is being seen outside of Substack. And, I would embrace with pride the description of ‘Substack writer’. Daily, I continue to be impressed with the thinking minds that show up here.
Ever forward, Mike!
I believe Danny boy engaged in the practice of listening just enough to reply; or to Insult and then restate his original thought. This marks him as a narcissist and lacking in intellect. I too have noticed the influx of the "others". It was so nice before they discovered this fresh new platform. I recommend blocking them.
“But the remedy in our system has never been for the executive to simply ignore judicial orders it finds inconvenient or incorrect. The remedy is appeal, legislation, constitutional amendment, or even impeachment—not defiance that renders judicial review meaningless.”
We can improve and “update” aspects of our Constitution not dismantle and destroy it.
Will all of the Trump lawlessness put “LAW AS BUSINESS “ out of work? What secures his installed EXTREME COURT when every now & again they disagree with him? What about immunity for his MUSKRATS invading and interfering with government operations?
Also, I have no earthly idea how you made this connection from McLaughlins statement on the courts usurpation of power. "He's suggesting that because judicial overreach is difficult to remedy constitutionally, extra-constitutional remedies become justified." What?! He never ever ever said that. He never said that. That's said nowhere. Implied nowhere. *Face palm*
If I sound too strong out of nowhere I apologize. I just legitimately consider National Review a group of authors who disagree routinely and yet somehow mete out good deliberations on issues and side for or against no politicians unconditionally. It is a refreshing breath of fresh air and I just get a bit overly defensive when it's undercut, and in my view, undercut badly.
Mike, the reason you think it's avoiding an editorial is because there was nothing "there" for McLaughlin to respond to. Also, can we please erase from our entire vocabulary and cultural dialogue any variation or repetition of the phrase, "let's be clear?" In the last 12 years that phrase has been beaten into the ground as some pseudo-authoritative way of saying "I'm declaring for you right now the absoluteness of my statements, thereby rendering dissent obsolete and useless." Please.
I feel a visceral sense of communion with Nietzsche and his description of staring into the abyss when I read your comment.
Says the Atheist
I’ll try to be less clear in the future, so as not to threaten your ideological comfort zone.
To my original point, I don't think less clarity is possible, but que sera, sera
And yet clarity without comprehension is a curse all its own. I suppose we’re both staring at the same page, but only one of us is reading.
Wouldn't be the first errant supposition on your part and that's just in one article!