fbpx

A Tale of Two Majorities

A good explanation of the Clinton-Trump clash we are living through, and of Trump’s having taken the Republican Party by storm, is in Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule’s 2010 brief for executive supremacy as the way we do constitutionalism. The Posner-Vermeule thesis in The Executive Unbound is that the Madisonian philosophy of separation of powers as a constraint on the presidency no longer exists, and good riddance. The more authoritative check on executive power, they say, is majority opinion and the fact that the President must face the voters every four years. This, and not Greg Weiner’s paean to Jemmy Madison, is the only source we have now for safe, effective, and informally limited government. Those wanting Madison on demand, Posner and Vermeule inform us, are whistling past the graveyard of a constitutionalism that no longer fits this American nation.

But is public opinion or democracy writ large capable of restraining an enthusiastic executive and sustaining a free society? What we are more likely to get is the politicization of virtually every corner of our lives and the magnifying intensity of every election contested. Commenting on the Posner-Vermeule thesis, Christopher DeMuth summarizes the forces that will emerge:

No doubt the concentration of power in the executive has prompted more intense public scrutiny of the president and political competition for the presidency, which in turn have disciplined the exercise of executive power. But the arrangement operates through politicization — the intrusion of politics into many hitherto private areas of life. It requires the public to be continuously attentive to political developments for the purpose of making an occasional, highly problematic decision — casting a vote every four years for one of a few presidential candidates, each one standing for a lengthy menu of policy positions in combination with a general philosophy and personal characteristics. . . .  These circumstances surely contribute to the political pathologies of the age: bitter partisanship, extreme and simplistic formulations of policy questions, routine personal vilification of the president, and the “permanent campaign”. . . , all of them leading to popular disillusionment with our system of government.

DeMuth’s misgivings have been reflected in the 2016 presidential campaign, whose outcome we are repeatedly told will indelibly shape our future — will ruin or save the nation, as the case may be. We have, as it were, only one final chance to get America back on track.

DeMuth also touches the deeper problem, one that surely predates Trump versus Clinton, of our government and much of our politics turning on presidential elections whereby the victor has the authority to enact the mandate he received from the voters. To this we can couple what Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) succinctly noted in National Review:

Whatever the merits of same-sex marriage, Common Core, amnesty for illegal immigrants, forcing Catholic nuns to buy contraception, or requiring high schools to open their girls’ bathrooms to teenage boys, the fact that all of these things recently became federal policy without ever receiving a vote in Congress represents a huge threat to American self-government. (emphasis in original)

Thus to presidential majorities is now joined the activist regulatory state, with some very intimate consequences.

We need a better practice of republicanism and for that we need to recover better thinking about majority rule—or rather the way in which majority opinion should be reflected in our institutions and our laws. We are surely not devoid of resources to help us think our way out of this predicament. However, we might need analogously to walk young Ted Boynton’s walk in Whit Stillman’s Barcelona. Boynton, seeking to understand his incessant failures with women, upon consulting the Old Testament, notes that “some of the advice was very tough.” Indeed. And things are never tougher than when we consult Willmoore Kendall’s scholarship on the constitutional morality that Publius elaborates in The Federalist Papers.

In his 1960 essay “The Two Majorities,” Kendall prescribes a painful cure that is as applicable to the perky postmodern of our age as it was to Progressive political scientists of Kendall’s. We must, he says, try on the morality that arises from majorities being restrained in our system by the whole of the people in the inter-branch competitive process, for it is this process that ensures that temporary or indulgent or weak majorities are weeded out. But note that Kendall, like Publius, says the majority will govern. That isn’t really a possibility that can be foreclosed.

Those majorities that are able to capture Congress, the executive, and the federal courts are those that turn the country in their direction, perhaps decisively reshaping it. Moreover, it is the interplay of the federal branches that protects minorities against having mandates shoved down their throats, because the majority will, in most situations, be compelled to bargain, compromise, and trade on certain policies in order to obtain its more dear policy objectives. Of course, narrow majorities among members of the Supreme Court or panels of regulators in executive branch agencies now frequently act apart from this deliberative process, the former through insisting that controversial accounts of unenumerated rights are to receive constitutional sanction, the latter by implementing federal statutes through an informal rule-making process outside of even the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. If we followed Kendall’s method we would counteract both.

In rebutting modern political science orthodoxy and its negative emphasis on the anti-democratic Constitution, Kendall underscores that the aims of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were not to act against the principle of majority will but to build a republican order that would be governed by the people through deliberation and compromise.[1] We might walk in their shoes, Kendall urges, and consider the problems they faced: schism within the country under the Articles of Confederation and the threat of breakaway states; mob rule in certain states that violated minority rights; and general crises of currency inflation and debt that threatened to strangle the political order in its infancy.[2]

Holding the country together in those circumstances was an urgent problem.  As Kendall shows, Publius did not respond by making war on majority rule in the name of preserving elitist, oligarchic principles, as legendary theorist Robert A. Dahl argues is embedded in the Constitution. More specifically, the aversion was not to majority rule as such, for surely they understood that in a republic the majority will have its way, but the more interesting question is in what way that will is to be reached, delineated, and enforced. Thus, the separation of powers, the federal government of enumerated powers, the equality of representation of the states in the U.S. Senate, the electoral college, the states’ power to set rules over voting and district maps in the House of Representatives—these are some of the most vital ways to form majority rule into the “deliberate sense of the people” such that majorities are ultimately engaged, shaped, limited, and informed by the whole of the represented people.

Thinking of deliberation in this way brings us to the diverse and extended republic of Federalist 10, with its clashing interests that challenge, or are supposed to challenge, unjust majorities by exposing their weaknesses and/or blocking their ability to shape the country. At the least, Kendall argues, those seeking drastic constitutional change are compelled by the oblique logic of Federalist 10 to wait in the “ante-room” before they are “sanctioned either by a constitutional amendment or by consensus among the three branches.”[3] Our constitutional structure makes it difficult to reshape the vast commercial republic that is America. Another way of making this point, Kendall notes, is the argument in Federalist 64, which concerns itself with the Senate’s  needing to provide a two-thirds concurrence to ratify any international treaty. Publius argues that the “good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole.”[4]

Even though Kendall is writing in 1960 about “The Two Majorities”—meaning the clashing representations of the two political branches of the federal government—he limns core political truths that connect with our self-government problem today.[5] He had taken up his pen in response to the position advanced by the legendary scholar Robert A. Dahl, who argues in Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) that the only legitimate majority is the presidential majority, as expressed in quadrennial presidential elections, which grant the winners of these contests a national mandate to make policy. But is there such a thing as a national majority, one that simply floats coast-to- coast, somehow above or at least apart from the “structured communities” of legislative districts and states represented in Congress? What type of majority does Dahl speak of?, Kendall inquires.

To be sure, says Kendall, it does rise above parochial or more limited points of view found within a majority of congressional districts on spending, immigration, foreign policy, trade, entitlements, and other issues. These political communities are bounded, insular—which means that when arguments about national policy are made, they become arguments about something concrete and particular that is refracted through existing communities with various interests. The appeals made to a national majority necessarily exist apart from actual communities. We might ask if such a thing as a national community and its majority can even properly exist; or if what really emerges is a sentiment of how things should be ideally. Then of course the question becomes, whose ideals shall prevail?

The arguments made on behalf of the national community partake, Kendall observes, of ideals that have been formed by faculty opinion and more cosmopolitan sectors of society, and then amplified by media organs. Such appeals are then concretized and reduced to rules by those certified within the regulatory agencies. The President and the regulators in the federal bureaucracy are not in the position of congressional representatives, who are beset with arguments, interests, prejudices, of many varieties as they go about representing a particular place.[6] Apparently the unlearned senators and representatives need to be taught and educated by the national majority, or what is really the same, in Kendall’s conception, elite opinion.

Considered from the perspective of the represented, though, how does one speak to a national constituency of the size, diversity, and complexity of America? Kendall observes that in the situation of a domineering presidential politics, the country must subscribe to the maxims or general statements of a candidate whose high-sounding principles commit the newly-elected President to pursue “mandate” politics fitting with the general tenor of the campaign that was waged or a new in-office campaign for a given policy.[7]

We argue, it seems, about nothing in particular and about everything nationally but in sheer generalities. Do presidential majorities, having diminished the role of congressional majorities in the making of federal policy, acknowledge tradeoffs and the costs and benefits of policies in healthcare, education, or environmental policies? Or do these policies get placed within overall themes of compassion or inclusion or indifference to those without insurance for the purchase of healthcare; of equal outcomes or equal opportunity in education; and either favoring pollution or favoring economic growth in regulating greenhouse gases? It is the politics of “lofty objectives” somehow translated into policy but in the crudest of ways.

The surest way for us to arrive at a better way for the majority to govern is to recover congressional elections that are about something—shaped by communities of people who can argue with one another, and make a choice among themselves on what they are concretely prepared to favor, tolerate, or oppose. This decision takes the form of choosing a person who will represent the community and is accordingly authorized to deliberate on its behalf. These elections, Kendall notes, are the surest bridge we still have to the Founders’ Constitution. Thus congressional elections turn not only on policies but on fitness of character—that is, the virtue of the person who is to represent a community and deliberate on its behalf is of greater significance. The judgment of character made by those represented as to who should represent them, then, is the unstated premise of our institutions’ capacity to perform their constitutional functions. It is the virtue that our system requires to fulfill its constitutional end.

I hasten to add that Kendall did not lack for a sense of realism. He didn’t invent the term “flyover country” but Kendall might as well have. He makes the appropriate comparison and realistic judgment that as between presidential and congressional majorities, elite opinion and all its trappings rides with the presidency. In its stead, we get a media-driven politics with soundbite platitudes. Deliberation is something that happens inside federal agencies, participated in by government and corporate elites, and obnoxious activists. Put differently, these are the people who couldn’t live one day in a real town with a real job; they are the last bunch you would want to see at your neighborhood bbq. Their calling, as they see it, is to edify the dark recesses of opinion within insular American communities.

This put-upon group of Americans, for the most part—and this is why the two national parties have fallen into such disrepute—finds only virtual representation in Congress and is commanded by a federal rule-making apparatus composed of judicial and executive officials whose promulgations elude curtailment by Congress. What is needed is the authority to change the terms of the debate, terms that have in some respects not changed appreciably in the 50 years since Kendall’s paper was published. What type of country will we become and whose principles will dominate it through majority rule? Rather than teacher President and pupil Congress, we need a debate over what Kendall called the “destiny and perfection of America and of mankind,” and this, he added, ultimately amounts to a contest “between American conservatism and American liberalism” at its deepest level. One thing that must change is for conservatism to make real the principle of self government. Kendall’s scholarship on the deliberative nature of our institutions must be the cornerstone of that refurbished foundation.

[1] “The Two Majorities,” in Willmoore Kendall: Contra Mundum (University Press of America, 1994), pp.  202–227. In footnote 24 of the essay, Kendall cites as his authority Federalist 58, and its proposition that preventing the majority from having its way reverses “the fundamental principle of free government …” “It would no longer be the majority that would rule….” Similarly, Kendall highlights the words of Federalist 22 to the effect that the touchstone of republican government is “the sense of the majority shall prevail.”

[2] The Federalist, edited by George W. Carey, The Gideon Edition (Liberty Fund, 2001), “No. 9,” p. 39.

[3] “The Intensity Problem and Democratic Theory,” in Willmoore Kendall: Contra Mundum (University Press of America, 1994). ­­­

[4] The Federalist ), “No. 64,” p. 336.

[5] “The Two Majorities,” pp.  202–227.

[6]  Ibid, pp. 223–227.

[7]  Ibid, p. 225.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 31, 2016 at 10:50:23 am

Great line: "Those wanting Madison on demand, Posner and Vermeule inform us, are whistling past the graveyard of a constitutionalism that no longer fits this American nation." I hope constitutionalism is not a graveyard.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on August 31, 2016 at 11:22:53 am

This learned discourse upon those of other learned discourses points is to an element missing in practically all these discussions. That element is a question, which if it has a determinable answer would greatly simplify all those issues; possibly, into two major categories.

The basic question:

WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT?

The category questions:

What are the constitutional functions of the Federal Government?

What are the functions of the Federal Government in the Federal Administrative State?

If we were to set a prologue to this essay that answered either of those questions; or, more delightfully, if this essay (and others in its vein) were to be presented in two segments, each following a prologue with a separate answer to each of those questions, we might come closer to understanding some historical departures, the changes in relationships, the actions of legislative doors, and the reactions of the electorate.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 31, 2016 at 11:24:46 am

Legislative doors = legislators

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 31, 2016 at 12:44:14 pm

People of varying political stripes express the idea that government is “broken.” Some do so for transparently self-interested reasons: They offer themselves as a remedy. Others do so out of simple frustration with being a minority: “The only possible explanation for why government has refuse to protect us from autism by banning inoculations is because government is broken!.”

But others offer a more systemic assessment: Some argue that partisanship has overtaken Madison’s faith that institutional jealously would serve as a check on governmental powers. Some argue that changes in the structure of government have led to ever more direct democracy—and all the problems attendant to that—without the benefits of intermediating institutions. Some argue that trends that concentrate power in the federal government, and in the executive, undermine the federalism and subsidiarity that formed a crucial part of the original design.

And some combine these arguments. Reinsch, I surmise, is one.

Whatever the merits of same-sex marriage, Common Core, amnesty for illegal immigrants, forcing Catholic nuns to buy contraception, or requiring high schools to open their girls’ bathrooms to teenage boys, the fact that all of these things recently became federal policy without ever receiving a vote in Congress represents a huge threat to American self-government. (emphasis in original)

Thus to presidential majorities is now joined the activist regulatory state….

Uh … no. What we’re observing is that the executive makes a variety of decisions without needing prior Congressional approval. But those decisions needn’t be activists; they could also be a decision to refrain from acting—and that decision would also be made without prior Congressional approval.

We call this Separation of Powers. If the Legislative Branch doesn’t like it, it has a variety of options. It could restrict the Executive’s use of its budget for various purposes. It could pass laws eliminating rules. Or rule-making authority. Or entire agencies. It could even propose to amend the Constitution to do away with the Executive Branch entirely—or turn it into an appendage of the Legislative Branch, much like the Congressional Budget Office.

But until then, I expect the Executive will continue to act as an independent branch of government.

The surest way for us to arrive at a better way for the majority to govern is to recover congressional elections that are about something—shaped by communities of people who can argue with one another, and make a choice among themselves on what they are concretely prepared to favor, tolerate, or oppose. This decision takes the form of choosing a person who will represent the community and is accordingly authorized to deliberate on its behalf. These elections, Kendall notes, are the surest bridge we still have to the Founders’ Constitution. Thus congressional elections turn not only on policies but on fitness of character—that is, the virtue of the person who is to represent a community and deliberate on its behalf is of greater significance. The judgment of character made by those represented as to who should represent them, then, is the unstated premise of our institutions’ capacity to perform their constitutional functions. It is the virtue that our system requires to fulfill its constitutional end.

I hasten to add that Kendall did not lack for a sense of realism…. He makes the appropriate comparison and realistic judgment that as between presidential and congressional majorities, elite opinion and all its trappings rides with the presidency. In its stead, we get a media-driven politics with soundbite platitudes. Deliberation is something that happens inside federal agencies, participated in by government and corporate elites, and obnoxious activists. Put differently, these are the people who couldn’t live one day in a real town with a real job; they are the last bunch you would want to see at your neighborhood bbq. Their calling, as they see it, is to edify the dark recesses of opinion within insular American communities.

Who would have guessed that when Sarah Palin lectured the nation about the need to defer to real Americans, her vacuous remarks had such an august pedigree?

In contrast to presidential elections, congressional elections are about something--seriously? Congress has never been less popular—yet the vast majority of Congressional seats are completely safe from electoral challenge. How is this fact consistent with the thesis? Shall we therefore conclude that throughout the majority of the nation there are no more somethings left to debate? Or shall we acknowledge that, despite Reinsch’s best efforts to put lipstick on that hockey mom, the outcome of these elections are wholly a function of political affiliation?

And in the few swing seats, the outcomes correlate positively with the outcome of the presidential election. How is this fact consistent with the thesis? That the outcome of presidential elections is a fact-free orgy of emotion—whereas the corresponding congressional elections are deeply rational and well-considered?

Finally, the idea that people who invest careers studying public policy—say, whether the desire to press back on Putin’s intrusion into the Crimea would be worth the problems that Putin could cause us in Syria—aren’t engaged in a real job because real Americans, blessed with an ignorance of the complexities, can simply rely on their self-congratulatory innate goodness to make such judgments?

No doubt there are plenty of places on the web that would welcome such pandering. Why post this comment on THIS web page, where people occasionally bring critical thinking to bear?
____

So here’s a trade-off: On the one hand, we have federalism/subsidiarity—the idea of pushing decisions down to the lowest level, as a manifestation of democracy. On the other hand, we have centralization and scrutiny—the observation that people lack the capacity to give attention to everything and thus focus on the big things, which tend to get addressed in a centralized manner. I humbly offer that there are costs and benefits to both options.

Consider Common Core. Oooh, it’s bad. And we can talk about how bad it is. We get lots of media scrutiny, and get the benefit of analyses from people with varying perspectives. We can organize and demonstrate and write to the president about it.

Alternatively, consider what Mr. Donaldson is teaching to his 4th period social studies class in the absence of Common Core. Is it bad? And what about what Ms. Jowalski is teaching in her class, and what Mrs. DeJeonardo is teaching in hers?

Consider the percentage of Americans who have given attention to the Common Core debate, and compare it to the percentage of Americans who give given attention to the curriculum choices in any given classroom in America. Which discussion is more democratic?

So why should I regard the Common Core debate as illegitimate, but give no comparable judgment about what gets taught in classrooms in the absence of a Common Core curriculum, and the absence of scrutiny? Reinsch seems to conclude that when government agents do things about which we are totally ignorant, it’s fine. It’s only when government agents do things that get a lot of scrutiny, and that require trade-offs, and that result in trade-offs that Reinsch doesn’t like, that we must conclude that government is bad.

I don’t share that perspective. I have worked on congressional campaigns; I have worked in state and federal government. They are not engines of evil, but neither are they Platonic forums for reasoned analysis. They are human organizations like any other, albeit organizations that operate with modest budgets (and the talent pool you can attract with those budgets) and limited scrutiny—and you get the results you might expect.

I like federalism. I like subsidiarity. But they come at a cost—and sometimes, the costs exceed the benefits.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on August 31, 2016 at 15:16:08 pm

Well said without taking much of a side either way.

It seems that we have have reached a crisis point insofar as the main checks on Executive Power no longer care to serve that function for whatever reason. Both the Judiciary and Congress give their excuses for their dereliction, but surely it is a cause for concern that the design of the Framers has been so easily abandoned. Adding to this the rise of the Administrative Branch that is similarly left uncontrolled (and in the case, for example, of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, outside of Congressional control), we have a genuine quandary.

There are only two roads down which we can travel: 1) a Police State in which the Federal Government becomes ever more intrusive and compels its decisions upon citizens who no longer have any effective representation in Congress or the Courts-- thus leading eventually to civil war; 2) Decentralization of the government so that the majority of power and decisions are relegated to the States and any abuses of citizens can be remedied easily by citizens moving to a better-suited State.

read full comment
Image of Silent T
Silent T
on September 01, 2016 at 11:22:55 am

Reinsch:
"The surest way for us to arrive at a better way for the majority to govern is to recover congressional elections that are about something..."

Nobody:
" congressional elections are about something.."

AND

"Shall we therefore conclude that throughout the majority of the nation there are no more somethings left to debate? Or shall we acknowledge that, despite Reinsch’s best efforts to put lipstick on that hockey mom, the outcome of these elections are wholly a function of political affiliation?"

Richard:
"WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT?

The category questions:

What are the constitutional functions of the Federal Government?

What are the functions of the Federal Government in the Federal Administrative State?"

Perhaps, the answer lies within Richard's questions?

Yes, congressional elections are about SOMETHING - all too often it would appear that they are about the WRONG something, the proper somethings being subsumed under the onslaught and overriding importance of the presidential contest AND the Party's dominance of the dialogue in framing the *somethings* to be discussed, debated, denied or defended. The Parties are quite ably assisted in the the framing of the dialogue by the elite opinion makers, either right or left and as the parties view their objectives in *NATIONAL* dominance, many local matters are pushed aside.

Lost in all of this is the question of "What precisely OUGHT the government to be engaged in?"

Clearly, the Executive race will continue to dominate our electoral dynamics. There is no escaping this. We must, however, not lose sight of the (expected / anticipated / hoped for?) value of an engaged LOCAL electorate / citizenry that would be represented by the members of the House. It would be the amalgamated concerns of all these localities that would serve to temper the transient national factions that, without resort to compromise, would enact its particular preferences.

When we lose sight of the proper scope of government, and allow the debate top be decided on "national terms" it is foolish to expect that the notion of subsidiarity and "place" will be high on the agenda of National Parties. Thus we have allowed ourselves to be subjected to a new regime of *national decision-making" by unelected and minimally accountable bureaucrats who DO HAVE VAST RESOURCES at their disposal and are prone to use them, contra nobody!
How many lawyers do you have on retainer to enforce your position. clearly, while any particular Administrative Agency may claim a lack of funds, there is always an ample supply of government paid lawyers to argue their case, is there not? The effect of this is that "national" agendas are reinforced and made part of the fabric of our Republic.

Now for another crackpot solution:

Want to mitigate the influence of Presidentail elections upon congressional elections?

Make the Presidential election occur in odd-numbered years and thus separate it from the congressional ones.
Hey, this should be easy. We can simply follow current practice. do it by Presidential edict!!! Obama has shown us the way and Posner and Vermuele have provided the intellectual underpinnings - What constitution? - That silly old thing!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 01, 2016 at 11:49:05 am

All 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto,albeit in modified form,has been injected into the American fabric. Gradually,over time,the original Constitution,its intent and meaning has been either altered,amended,miss-interpreted or changed to accommodate this reality. In essence,with this change,came the perception of what the proper role and function of the Federal Government was in American life. In the end,once the socialist genie was released from its lamp,the old Constitutional Republic was doomed.
Because of the influences of Cultural Marxism over the past Century or so,the average American has had their attitude toward the proper role and function of government,especially the Federal Government,altered to the point where a majority of Americans have accepted,sometimes enthusiastically,that the government is there to help them solve their problems. In reality nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the state is there to enslave them. The statists and power seekers use this voting majority dependency class to achieve their megalomaniac dream of ruling over us. This story is as old as history. That is a free people losing their liberty because of a lack of self discipline,self government,self reliance and self responsibility all brought about by the lack of a morality as outlined by the Founding Fathers. In essence,once a voting majority discovered that it was easier to vote for a living instead of working for a living America as a free nation was doomed.
In the end,I'm afraid that America and the West in general will follow the examples of past empires and destroy themselves through both fiscal and moral bankruptcy. A perfect example and an ominous parallel was the old Roman Empire that destroyed itself almost in the same manner as America is destroying itself today. The only difference now is the process is a lot faster. The sad part of the story is what America could have been if not for it's self destruction.

read full comment
Image of libertarian jerry
libertarian jerry
on September 01, 2016 at 14:06:16 pm

[T]he average American has had their attitude toward the proper role and function of government,especially the Federal Government,altered to the point where a majority of Americans have accepted,sometimes enthusiastically,that the government is there to help them solve their problems. In reality nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the state is there to enslave them.

Thus did the Southern slave owners lecture their slaves. How many slaves were persuaded, history does not say.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on September 01, 2016 at 14:36:33 pm

How many slaves were persuaded,"

Not many as they were held by force; history does tell us that much.

What will history say of the new means of holding one in thrall to an overarching force?
One begins to see, as history also informs us of the southern slaves, that there is a growing sense of rebellion and just like with the ante-bellum South of miscreant *aristocrats* the messaging of the current "aristocracy of the *informed* elites is becoming all too transparent.

The question is: when the elites current tactics of "moral suasion", nudging, shaming, (sending to Coventry?) deployed against those with contrary views proves unable to quiet the masses, will the elites resort to the use of force such as our miscreant Southern Masters did?

In other words, does the IRS (and countless other Executive Agencies) actually need their own SWAT teams? It could make one paranoid.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on September 01, 2016 at 14:40:40 pm

Oh, and here is one to show that the WRONG *something* has overtaken our Legislatures:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/01/california-prepares-criminalize-sting-videos-planned-parenthood/

Then again, it IS California - so what is the big deal?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.