We’re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties — social-democratic vs. limited-government — have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama’s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide.
Yep. Opinionist Charles Krauthammer and journalistic analyst Gerald Seib see things exactly the same way. The current debate is about different notions of how economic and political life ought to be lived. And the issue can only be settled by an election.
To everything else they and we have said about this, we'll add one more element. Much depends on whether Americans will own up to their individual double-mindedness about such matters. To wit: most citizens are insistent that the government both (a) get off their back; and (b) give them increasing entitlements. Hence, both (a) Tea Party conservatives who want the budget balanced yesterday without touching Social Security and Medicare; (b) Subaru socialists who want the price to be paid by the rich, who happen to be just beyond the economic ambitions that they have for their offspring.
In our mind, we imagine a political Don Corleone who will do to Our Republic what that celebrated character did to Johnny Fontane:
5 comments:
And the issue can only be settled by an election.
Don't bet on it. Smart money says it'll be decided by the Supreme Court. Lawmakers don't have the guts to make tough laws. It's too easy to pass off the responsibility to the nine justices that don't have to worry about re-election.
The Supremes can settle something legally but not politically. The direction of the nation is a political question. Cf. Roe v. Wade.
So you're saying that legal decisions never settle political policy? I would have thought Roe v. Wade was evidence to the contrary. Before Roe, there was disagreement among various states over whether and to what extent the government should protect the unborn or prosecute abortion providers. When the Court weighed in, it established an entirely new policy concerning individual and state interests (based on the notion of trimesters) that it then ordered every government agency to adopt. Is that not a classic case of the Court using its legal muscle to settle disputes over political policy?
It's the classic example of settling it legally but not politically. Before Roe v. Wade, there was little consideration for abortion policy in electoral politics. Now it's a litmus-test issue for a significant number of voters, and the body politic remains more divided than it was before the decision.
It's probably my use of "legally" and "politically" that is at stake here.
It's probably my use of "legally" and "politically" that is at stake here.
Or my use of "legal" and "political". I think you're right to say that the Court settled the abortion dispute (mostly) legally not politically. But at the same time, I want to add that the dispute it settled was (mostly) political not legal. Even though the abortion debate had not yet made much of an impact on national politics, it did have a significant effect on state and local governments.
Post a Comment