We're The Same, But Different

Props to Jack Mercer for bringing to my attention through his blog, News Snippets, this article by Rush Limbaugh of all people.

Limbaugh's view is well articulated. The article is a good read. For me, it served as both an impetus for internal reflection on my own beliefs, and what should be a wake up call for liberals everywhere. I could go on for hours about each of the points he makes, debunking the generalizations, embracing the truthful critiques, but I will only address a couple of things.

His assertion that the Miers debate is a "crackdown" and not a "crackup" is pretty silly. I get his point but, no matter how you slice it, there is a debate. It's the debate that liberals are calling a "crackup". Liberals are needlessly foaming at the mouth over it, however, because it will not weaken the administration or the GOP one iota. That futility is a very important and true issue that Limbaugh brings up throughout the article. Conservatives or more appropriately, Republicans, are thoroughly organized. The fact that this Miers issue is the closest thing to a crackup they've had in years is a perfect testament to their solidarity. Liberals or, unfortunately and more accurately, Democrats, need to take a page from their book. Democrats keep trying to appeal to outsiders rather than insiders and have lost supporters and strength in the process. Kerry was a terrible choice as a candidate because he honestly didn't differ from Bush that much. He was pro war, anti gay marriage, and loved to spend other people's money. He was, as the Republicans cuttingly dubbed him, "Bush Lite". That is why we lost the election (along with the power of fear).

Democrats would have been better off presenting voters with a real alternative, even if he was perceived as "far left". Dean would have been a better choice because he is a true liberal. He could have shined light on Bush's "liberal" traits such as reckless spending the same way Bush shined a light on Kerry's "conservative" ones. Of course my guy was Dennis Kucinich; now there's a man with character and principals. He has no charisma, however, and wasn't good at raising money so he was never a true possibility.

Other points that Limbaugh makes in the article are good. He states a clear case against judicial activism. Our founding fathers definitely did not want judges to "legislate from the bench". But that's not to say I'm against the idea. States' rights and autonomy have been rapidly eroding ever since our Republic was born. We live in a brave new world in which the power of the federal government has an absolute stranglehold over what little power the states have left to govern themselves. Just look at the amount of taxes we pay to the feds versus our states. Look at agencies like the FBI, CIA, FEMA, Homeland Security, etc. When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution there wasn't even a federal income tax, now an enormous source of wealth and power for the government.

My point is, the federal government has increased in size and scope about 1,000,000 times since it was first conceived (thanks in large part to "conservatives" like Bush). "Judicial activism" is a way of forcing the states to accept what is right. Do you think Jim Crow laws would have been overturned without the power of judicial activism? What would the chances be that Alabama would still have "separate but equal" drinking fountains and rest rooms without it? The truth is, ALL Supreme Court judges interpret the "spirit" of the Constitution, not what is actually written. If their job was simply to verify whether something was expressly granted in the Constitution or not they wouldn't even need a high school diploma. Any literate person could tell you that.

As far as Limbaugh's concluding paragraph where he lambastes liberals for trying to relive "presumed glory years" while the conservatives "make history", that's obviously a bold generalization. Some Democrats (as opposed to liberals) are trying to view Katrina as the Great Depression, etc. but that's simply the same partisan feuding that always goes on. It's the very spirit, in reverse, behind Limbaugh's article. As far as Iraq is concerned, if it fails the way Vietnam did it will be viewed as Vietnam's sequel. That's just the way the history books are written.