Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t describe either political party in the United States as particularly authoritarian. We have, in practice, what amounts to center-left and center-right governance.

I’ll agree that most of the time that has been true. But it has to be acknolweged that, for the last 18-19 months, the not-center-at-all left has been dominant. It has even thrown those of its own party who were too center-left overboard, made them “walk the plank”, politically.

I am a “cradle Democrat” who was an activist, an organizer, a campaigner and a party officeholder. Now, I’ll admit I’m getting along in age. But truthfully, the Republican party (the “mainliners”) more nearly resemble the Democrat party of my younger years than the present Democrat party does. To me, it’s “center-center” for the most part, and for that reason. JFK, for example, greatly more resembles John McCain than he does Barack Obama.

The present Democrat party, oddly enough, reminds me a great deal of the “Rockefeller Repbulicans” of yore. Elitist, wealthy, given to social engineering. I’m not saying it’s a perfect match, but it is strange how “centers” and “rights” and “lefts” can shift around.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As someone who lives in the Northeast, the situation is easy to describe. The “looters” have been outvoting the “producers” for years here. It has metastacized nationwide and we are now an economic “dead man walking”. The “looters” won’t acknowledge this until the “producers” are broke. Stay tuned.

Note: One can find Ayn Rand’s objectivism abhorrent but agree with her looter/producer metaphor.

I’m certainly no Ayn Rand worshipper, though I’ll admit “Atlas Shrugged” has some real truths in it. At present, of course, Atlas has not shrugged. But his shoulders are getting twitchy. Truth is, Atlas is mightily wary of the radical leftists now in power, and sees that they mean him no good. So, he hasn’t shrugged, exactly, but he isn’t hiring, isn’t investing, isn’t expanding. He is paying down debt as fast as he can, getting ready for the storms ahead. He already knows who he’s going to lay off when his costs spike upward. I guess that’s a bit of a shrug. Maybe a “shrug lite”??? This country really can’t afford to let this go on, but so far nothing has stopped it.

I do not pretend, in any way, to know the minds of northeasterners. But you know, there are some very significant regional differences in this country, and it seems they’re getting more heavily drawn. And it really isn’t a “class thing” exactly. People on all points of the economic scale in my part of the country, for instance, vote Republican (if only because there’s nothing more conservative than Republican on the ballot) and absolutely have no love for the “guv’mint” or its works at all. They love America as an ideal and even as a people, but have no more feeling of commonality with this government, as government, than they do with the government of France. They would (and some do) fight and die for people; including some unknown unwed mother in rural Maine, but wouldn’t set off a cap gun for the rulers in Washington.

I really don’t know what accounts for the regional differences. Cultural heritage, maybe. I don’t know. I’m not one of those who thinks (or advocates) that there will be a Civil War again. But it might be noted in passing that it has been said the only states that really wanted the Civil War were Massachusetts and South Carolina. But when the lines got drawn, it seems, people followed heritage, and people with regional affiliations fell in line, dislike it as many did. Again, I don’t predict a Civil War. But the regional lines are getting pretty sharply drawn; much more so than I ever, in my lifetime, expected to see. It can’t be good.

 

[Good_News_1]

Non sequitur. Just because it didn’t happen a different way doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened another way.

That doesn’t change the fact that it happened as it happened. You don’t get to rewrite history with your pet theories. You don’t know it COULD have happened any differenty, just as you don’t know you can get somewhere by bus without a horrible accident, until you are there.

Might makes right?

Might usually shapes the world we live in.

You seem to keep missing the point. It isn’t about what is, but what should be. The latter is what I’m talking about.

No, I understand your point, I just think it is incredibly unmoored from reality.

Life is about solving discrete problems. It isn’t about rerunning historical scenarios as we would like them. It isn’t about grand theories that never came to light. It is about doing the best we can with the resources we have. It is about respecting the practical limitations we have. We have a discrete set of problems in America. I am interested in people who want to solve them, not people who want to fight about choices made a hundred years ago. I am not interested in hearing about how life could have been different if someone long dead had made another choice. I don’t see why anyone would be interested in that - and I particularly don’t see why anyone would base their practical political philosophy on a set of ideals that they say never came into existence.

I disagree because a clear reading of the Constitution does not support such a position.

But a clear reading of the Constitution does support such a position.

But to say that just because it has been that way for years, therefore it must be true, is wrongheaded. Again, I point you to the example of slavery. Slavery existed for millenia, yet we don’t suggest that slavery was in any way legitimate.

I don’t see any slaves. I see a government that performs fairly mundane functions in a market economy, like subsidizing certain industries, and passing out food stamps. If you don’t like the practical operations of the programs, fine. But ideological tantrums are lost on me. They only divide for the sake of division.

 

[Suudy]

That doesn’t change the fact that it happened as it happened. You don’t get to rewrite history with your pet theories. You don’t know it COULD have happened any differenty, just as you don’t know you can get somewhere by bus without a horrible accident, until you are there

Again, I’m not talking about what is or what was, but what should be and what should have been. You can’t seem to separate the two.

I’m not rewriting history. I’m not even definitively saying that we would be where we are now. What I am saying is that we should have focused on getting here the right way. The right way, as in the just and licit way. We should strive in everything to reach our goals licitly.

Might usually shapes the world we live in.

You didn’t answer the question. Does might make right? Do the strongest decide what is true?

No, I understand your point, I just think it is incredibly unmoored from reality.

Of course it is, because I’m talking about what should be. I’m talking ethics, you are talking ontology. And it should be, for when a thing doesn’t exist, it is by necessity detached from reality. I say that murder **should be **illegal, and it is, you don’t consider that “incredibly unmoored from reality.” But if at the founding of the country, if I were to say slavery should be illegal, would you reject it because it is “incredibly unmoored from reality”?

Come now, you can see the difference, no?

Life is about solving discrete problems.

It is about much more than that. That seems to be what you are missing. Not only are we to solve problems, but we are to solve problems rightly.

I don’t see why anyone would be interested in that - and I particularly don’t see why anyone would base their practical political philosophy on a set of ideals that they say never came into existence.

Because, perhaps, we wouldn’t have the particular problems we have now had they came to exist. And because were they to be implemented it might fix those problems in the long run, rather than have us continue down the road we are going now.

But a clear reading of the Constitution does support such a position.

Show me where a clear reading supports the right to abortion. Show me where a clear reading supports farm subsidies. Show me where a clear reading supports federal drug policies. Show me where a clear reading supports mandated health care coverage for seniors.

And, of course, clear reading means plain reading.

I don’t see any slaves. I see a government that performs fairly mundane functions in a market economy, like subsidizing certain industries, and passing out food stamps.

Again with the ends justifying the means.

You want solutions? We could eliminate poverty by putting all people below the poverty line to death. Would that be acceptable to you? After all, it would get rid of a huge portion of our budget. What about when everyone reaches the age of 65, instead of giving them Medicare, we just give them a cyanide capsule. That’s solves that huge expenditure. Of course we keep the taxes in for Medicare, but we don’t waste any money on actually paying for health care.

When we look back on history, and wonder how we got where we are now, we must consider whether the means were just and righteous. And every act we participate in now, we must consider whether they are licit. Even if the end is as noble as feeding a hungry person, or giving shelter to a homeless child, or helping a poor family make ends meet, we cannot achieve those ends though illicit means.

But ideological tantrums are lost on me. They only divide for the sake of division.

Nonsense. They divide because people, such as you it seems, don’t care how we get there, only that we do. You are focus on the ends, without any concern for the injustices that may be committed achieving those ends. They divide because people like me consider the just path, even if longer or more difficult, and others consider only the shortest, quickest path, even if unjust.

 

[Good_News_1]

Again, I’m not talking about what is or what was, but what should be and what should have been. You can’t seem to separate the two.

Because only one exists. To what purpose you disturb the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves, I do not know.

What I am saying is that we should have focused on getting here the right way.

Right, generations later, having no sweat in the game, you want to be a critic.

If that’s too flip, I will give you an example:

It is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been adopted had it not been for compromises that were designed to protect the interests of the slave states. I have a pretty high opinion of myself, but I’m certainly not in a position to tell these long dead, accomplished men that they didn’t do it the “right” way. Nor am I going to to speculate on some artificial world where things were done the “right” way. I recognize that most events are double-edged, at best. I’m not going to stand in judgment on the men who fought the civil war, or those that fought for civil rights. They did what they could: that is the “right” way.

The right way, as in the just and licit way.

But this is circular at best, and just a naked statement that you , as someone of unknown (to me) training and experience, are right, and that everyone who actually deals with the messy business of running the government and the courts are wrong. I don’t know what you mean by “licit.” What I mean by licit is: laws are passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and reviewed by the Courts. This isn’t philosophy. Laws are realities; everything else is opinion. You think you could do better than everyone else in American history. I have my doubts.

You didn’t answer the question. Does might make right? Do the strongest decide what is true?

God will sort it out in the end. Power is always a factor in forming our world. In the end, the moral action is as often based more on the practical than the ideal. See, discussion of the founders and slavery, above.

But if at the founding of the country, if I were to say slavery should be illegal, would you reject it because it is “incredibly unmoored from reality”?

But, of course, to take a position that slavery should be abolished at that time was unmoored from reality. You see the difference, no?

Not only are we to solve problems, but we are to solve problems rightly.

And, by rightly, you mean your way, in disregard of the opinions of those who actually do or have done the work. I’m following right along, I think.

Show me where a clear reading supports the right to abortion. Show me where a clear reading supports farm subsidies. Show me where a clear reading supports federal drug policies. Show me where a clear reading supports mandated health care coverage for seniors.

You can look up the cases as well as I can.

And, of course, clear reading means plain reading.

Says you.

You want solutions? We could eliminate poverty by putting all people below the poverty line to death.

I don’t get it. Your mind always goes to the extreme. The entire point of politics is not to go to the extreme.

Quit with the hyperbole. My mother getting a social security check isn’t comparable to putting anyone to death. It may be a good program or a bad program, irresponsibly or well run, doomed to failure or a great success. But it isn’t “illicit” and it isn’t comparable to slavery or killing people.

When we look back on history, and wonder how we got where we are now,

Right: how did we get to be the world’s sole remaining superpower with the largest economy without following all of your fine advice?

They divide because people, such as you it seems, don’t care how we get there, only that we do.

I’m sorry; this is getting a little silly. We have some problems in this country. We have a recession. That will pass. We have a budget deficit. That isn’t hard to solve, if we work together, cut spending and raise taxes. But, in order to do that, we need to compromise on all sides. The liberal left needs to stop calling the social security panel the “catfood commission.” The right needs to stop pushing for irresponsible tax cuts.

This isn’t some overarching political theory for consistent utilitarianism. It’s about understanding the difference between a moral question and a practical administrative question, and accepting the reality that solving problems involves compromise, and that the world isn’t theory.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Nah, I am more of a Mancow guy myself. And Jerry Doyle, and Niel Boortz.

I’m back from work.

Catching up, I caught this quote.

Never cared personally for Neil Boortz OR (especially) Mancow. Mancow comes off as more of a “shock jock” who does poltical commentary to me. But I do like and listen to Jerry Doyle. Good guy. I like some of his ideas.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Would the tea party cease to exist if it weren’t for Fox New? I think so.

mediamatters.org/blog/201008300026

Now Glenn Beck is telling them how to dress. I guess that makes him the tea party daddy.
I think a nice pair of cargo pants and a plain navy polo would be nice.

While Fox News IS responsible for most pushing the Tea Party into the American People’s consciousness, (without them most Americans would not know about them) it is erroneous of you to assume they are dependent solely upon Fox News. Fox News may indeed keep information about the TP front and center on its channel (can you honestly say the left-leaning MSM would really give them the time of day?) but the platform and public figures on it (the most important being, of course, Sarah Palin) give it legitimacy and staying power. Like others have said here, people are mighty FED UP with MOST of everything that’s happening in this great country of ours. As long as that is happening, we will have parties like TP and the Constitution Party and others answering the need for an “alternative” and way to answer the Public’s Anger.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You should believe everything I say as I am right 99.999999% of the time. And even when I’m wrong I mostly right-in most cases extreme right.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I love this.

The left is given to authoritarian concentrations of power. That’s as old as tribalism. The present all-powerful triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid is as old as the Roman Republic.

Long ago, we had terrible transportation problems. They were largely solved by the proper employment of power from petroleum. The left doesn’t like petroleum, and wants to frustrate its use.

Before man figured out that he could warm himself and cook his food with fire, he just shivered in the dark and ate food raw. After some time, he figured out that coal burns even more efficiently than wood. Then he discovered that he could employ coal to generate electricity. The left doesn’t like coal and wants it banned.

And, before man had figured out almost anything, he had nothing but the sun and wind to light his life and sail his boats. Today, the left wants us to try to power everything with the sun and wind.

Man figured out that there’s a lot more nutrition in meat than there is in grass and gathered roots. Of course, the left thinks cattle cause enough methane to kill polar bears, so they want to cut down on those.

In primitive socieities (and some today) gathering wealth was chiefly a function of raiding one’s more fortunate neighbor. The left wants to redistribute wealth by force.

In primitive societies, unwanted children were exposed to the elements to die. Obama, the left’s darling, opposed the Infants Born Alive Act…twice.

And the TEA PARTY is composed of reactionaries?

You know, I had forgotten Ole Barry had opposed the Infants Born Alive Act twice. Sheesh. Lord have mercy on our wretched souls.

He also was asked his opinion on Abortion legislation. The Annointed One’s answer?

“That’s above my pay scale.”

 

[Ocean52680]

Good News,

A couple of comments on your application of Burke.

I agree that true conservatism should always caution against sudden radical or reactionary political shifts. Both can shake and ultimately crumble nation states and civil society in general. The blood bath of the French Revolution certainly validates this point. However, applying Burkean Conservatism to a laundry list of fairly recent 20th century policies (certain welfare and entitlement programs) as “inherited traditions and practices” is problematic.

With respect to government, and unlike the British model, our “inherited traditions and practices” were codified in the Constitution. Yes, the document has changed over years. However, the changes were small, gradual, and very much in line with Burke’s idea of conservatism. And unlike the British model, the document applies clear and concrete limitations to our national government.

Yet, the growth of the Federal government has far outpaced the meager changes to the Constitution. In the 20th century, especially in time of crisis, we enacted policies that stretched and exceeded the limits federal authority. And by any Burkean standard - the policies were radical.

And, as one radical minister said recently, the chickens have come home to roost. Current mandatory spending is unsustainable and crippling the economic future of the country. The welfare state as we know it, must be reduced in size and scope. Taking on this challenge and rolling back the welfare state is hardly reactionary and perfectly in line with Burkean philosophy. Social Security and Medicare are not “inherited traditions and practices”. They are aging and unsustainable dinosaur programs, born in two separate periods of radical liberalism. Candidates that support restructuring, or dare I say privatizing, both programs are not reactionary. They are attempting to reign in the federal government and bring it back in line with the small, gradual, Burkean changes to the Constitution.

 

[a_priori]

I’m certainly no Ayn Rand worshipper, though I’ll admit “Atlas Shrugged” has some real truths in it. At present, of course, Atlas has not shrugged. But his shoulders are getting twitchy. Truth is, Atlas is mightily wary of the radical leftists now in power, and sees that they mean him no good. So, he hasn’t shrugged, exactly, but he isn’t hiring, isn’t investing, isn’t expanding. He is paying down debt as fast as he can, getting ready for the storms ahead. He already knows who he’s going to lay off when his costs spike upward. I guess that’s a bit of a shrug. Maybe a “shrug lite”??? This country really can’t afford to let this go on, but so far nothing has stopped it.

I do not pretend, in any way, to know the minds of northeasterners. But you know, there are some very significant regional differences in this country, and it seems they’re getting more heavily drawn. And it really isn’t a “class thing” exactly. People on all points of the economic scale in my part of the country, for instance, vote Republican (if only because there’s nothing more conservative than Republican on the ballot) and absolutely have no love for the “guv’mint” or its works at all. They love America as an ideal and even as a people, but have no more feeling of commonality with this government, as government, than they do with the government of France. They would (and some do) fight and die for people; including some unknown unwed mother in rural Maine, but wouldn’t set off a cap gun for the rulers in Washington.

I really don’t know what accounts for the regional differences. Cultural heritage, maybe. I don’t know. I’m not one of those who thinks (or advocates) that there will be a Civil War again. But it might be noted in passing that it has been said the only states that really wanted the Civil War were Massachusetts and South Carolina. But when the lines got drawn, it seems, people followed heritage, and people with regional affiliations fell in line, dislike it as many did. Again, I don’t predict a Civil War. But the regional lines are getting pretty sharply drawn; much more so than I ever, in my lifetime, expected to see. It can’t be good.

'Shrug lite"? I like it. You make some interesting points. I’ve lived in and visited different parts of the country and they all have good and bad. I landed back in RI because this is home. I have a multicultural family and the more conservative parts of the country are a little less tolerant of these things.

Anyway, there is a problem on the right and a problem on the left. They both have to do with the suspension of reality to insist on a lifestyle based on “higher ideals”. The right is disabled by this notion of American exceptionalism and that we are Winthrop’s City on a Hill. This is obviously based on Calvinism and suggests that we were/are “the Elect”. Fast forward. It has given us Manifest Destiny, made us a superpower, entitled us to a disproportionate percentage of the world’s resources and the transcendent right to project power, economic and military, around in order to preserve the standard of living to which God has entitled us. Fine.

The left feels that we should take money from some people and give it to others because it’s the right thing to do. Politicians and activists (who are often sufficiently financially insulated themselves) have taken it upon themselves to borrow billions of dollars to give entitlements to people because the universe owes them. Paying mortgages, buying cars, paying college tuition. They think that money falls from the sky and that the nobility of their intentions will justify it all.

The only necessary skill in life for many people is the ability to reach the lever in the voting booth.

American politicians and the people who put them there are often just plain delusional. Spending money we don’t have is killing us. Money borrowed by the right and money borrowed by the left still results in debt. We reached a tipping point because we are self-centered and have insisted on having our cake and eating it too. Congratulations America. You are heading to being $14 Trillion in the hole. In the history of the human race I don’t think there has ever been such a huge gradient between what a group of people think they are and what they actually are economically than 21st Century America.

 

[estesbob]

In other words, to “resurrect” a dead theory of the Constitution which was never seriously adopted because it didn’t work, and replace the policies that were in place as the United States became a superpower and the economic engine of the world. That’s an ideal?

.

No doubt-without the dept of Education. OSHA, HHS(to name a few) the US would never have reached superpower Status…

 

[ishii]

You didn’t answer the question. Does might make right? Do the strongest decide what is true?

Of course it is, because I’m talking about what should be. I’m talking ethics, you are talking ontology. And it should be, for when a thing doesn’t exist, it is by necessity detached from reality. I say that murder **should be **illegal, and it is, you don’t consider that “incredibly unmoored from reality.” But if at the founding of the country, if I were to say slavery should be illegal, would you reject it because it is “incredibly unmoored from reality”?

Come now, you can see the difference, no?

Show me where a clear reading supports the right to abortion. Show me where a clear reading supports farm subsidies. Show me where a clear reading supports federal drug policies. Show me where a clear reading supports mandated health care coverage for seniors.

And, of course, clear reading means plain reading.

You want solutions? We could eliminate poverty by putting all people below the poverty line to death. Would that be acceptable to you? After all, it would get rid of a huge portion of our budget. What about when everyone reaches the age of 65, instead of giving them Medicare, we just give them a cyanide capsule. That’s solves that huge expenditure. Of course we keep the taxes in for Medicare, but we don’t waste any money on actually paying for health care.

.

All good questions and points, still waiting for an answer. Where does our constitution guarentee a right to abortion? It seems to me the burden of proof for that is on the side of those who favor abortion rights. And what of abortion? Why do so many Americans accept its legality?

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

Abortion is legal because so many Americans (and catholics, it would seem) have lost their sense of morality and religion, having been replaced by a secular idea that the government is god and will solve everything.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

If, then, America has become secularized, and if Adams was correct, then the Constitution is inadequate, and we need not consider it as any more than 200 years+ old historical document.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Abortion is legal because so many Americans (and catholics, it would seem) have lost their sense of morality and religion, having been replaced by a secular idea that the government is god and will solve everything.

I disagree. Many Libertarians are not believers; they certainly don’t demand it of anyone, and yet none of those, by their very political philosophy, do not believe that the government is a god who will solve everything.

 

[the_phoenix]

While Fox News IS responsible for most pushing the Tea Party into the American People’s consciousness, (without them most Americans would not know about them) it is erroneous of you to assume they are dependent solely upon Fox News. Fox News may indeed keep information about the TP front and center on its channel (can you honestly say the left-leaning MSM would really give them the time of day?) but the platform and public figures on it (the most important being, of course, Sarah Palin) give it legitimacy and staying power. Like others have said here, people are mighty FED UP with MOST of everything that’s happening in this great country of ours. As long as that is happening, we will have parties like TP and the Constitution Party and others answering the need for an “alternative” and way to answer the Public’s Anger.

Actually, in my case, it wasn’t FOX News that introduced me personally to the Tea Party, since I don’t watch TV and haven’t for over two years now.

It was certain people right here in the CAF forum who inspired me to attend a Tea Party rally in person this past April to see for myself what really happened at such an event. After reading posts putting down the Tea Party, I decided to check it out.


And what did I discover at the Tea Party thanks to its critics?

Refreshingly enough, there were local candidates there handing out literature in which they openly described themselves as pro-life. Awesome, now I know who to support come election time … the pro-lifers who attended the Tea Party and introduced themselves to me can count on my vote.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Candidates there handing out literature in which they openly described themselves as pro-life. Awesome, now I know who to support come election time … the pro-lifers who attended the Tea Party and introduced themselves to me can count on my vote.

Lucky you meeting the pro-lifers among them. There are secularists and pro-choicers among the Tea Partyists who want the less government and less spending aspects of their movement, but who believe that the government has no business interfering with a right to choose.

 

[PTL]

Actually, in my case, it wasn’t FOX News that introduced me personally to the Tea Party, since I don’t watch TV and haven’t for over two years now.

It was certain people right here in the CAF forum who inspired me to attend a Tea Party rally in person this past April to see for myself what really happened at such an event. After reading posts putting down the Tea Party, I decided to check it out.


And what did I discover at the Tea Party thanks to its critics?

Refreshingly enough, there were local candidates there handing out literature in which they openly described themselves as pro-life. Awesome, now I know who to support come election time … the pro-lifers who attended the Tea Party and introduced themselves to me can count on my vote.

Awesome! I am with you. I believe whoever has a right conscience according to our faith and Gospel will vote for candidates with true Christian values.

 

[Good_News_1]

Yet, the growth of the Federal government has far outpaced the meager changes to the Constitution. In the 20th century, especially in time of crisis, we enacted policies that stretched and exceeded the limits federal authority. And by any Burkean standard - the policies were radical.

That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it - the United States adopted the same social insurance and welfare policies that every other industrial nation has, but on a smaller scale, during a particularly tumultuous century, which began with the Industrial Revolution, included a worldwide Depression and two world wars, the Cold War, nuclear weapons and globalization.

Current mandatory spending is unsustainable and crippling the economic future of the country.

Yeah. We have a budget deficit. We also need to deal with Medicare and Social Security. I think the nation that won the World War II and the Cold War can handle that without all the acrimony and ideological posturing.

 

[Good_News_1]

With respect to government, and unlike the British model, our “inherited traditions and practices” were codified in the Constitution. Yes, the document has changed over years. However, the changes were small, gradual, and very much in line with Burke’s idea of conservatism. And unlike the British model, the document applies clear and concrete limitations to our national government.

In this regard, Robert Bork had some thoughts about the conservative position on the Commerce Clause:

Regrettably, but perhaps inevitably, “[t]he ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when its revision began.” Almost immediately, Congress began pressing beyond specifically enumerated powers granted it in Article I. As a result, today, Americans encounter a national government far more expansive than the Framers and men of their generation could ever have imagined…

There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.

Moreover, as Edward Banfield has argued, the attempt to define the outer limits of national power, as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does, was likely a flawed enterprise, doomed to failure from the very beginning:

“Nothing of importance can be done to stop the spread of federal power, let alone to restore something like the division of powers agreed upon by the framers of the Constitution. The reason lies in human nature: men cannot be relied upon voluntarily to abide by their agreements, including those upon which their political order depends. There is an antagonism, amounting to an incompatibility, between popular government — meaning government in accordance with the will of the people — and the maintenance of limits on the sphere of government.”

constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

He suggests that the Commerce Clause be utilized to enact tort reform. He repeatedly suggests that Congress be mindful of the authority of the states.

If Bork - doubtless a conservative and an originalist - will not advocate the position that the expansion of the Commerce Clause is illegitimate and should be declared unConstitutional by the courts, then I wonder, at this point in history, how conservative tis he idea of returning to enumerated powers? I find Bork refreshing and non-dogmatic, even non-ideological. He makes a distinction between the expansion of the commerce clause and the inorganic creation of rights in the Griswold decision.