Shorter Rick Santorum: Know who else thought government had a role in educating children?  Hitler!

It is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children. It is not the government’s job. 

I admit to being puzzled as to why so many people think parent's responsibilities and government's jobs are mutually exclusive.  Do we not both defend our children, for example, both at home and through constitutional mechanisms?  Why, then, should each authority not have some role in education, especially when the health of the republic is at stake?

One thing I love about Vermont's constitution is that education is an integral part of our frame of government.  As the state supreme court observed:

[F]or the founders of the frontier Republic of Vermont the fostering of republican values, or public “virtue” as it was commonly known  in the eighteenth century, was not the empty rhetoric it often seems today;  it was an urgent necessity — a matter literally affecting the survival of  the new Republic.  

This urgency was reflected in the Constitution, one  provision of which instructed that “frequent recurrence to fundamental  principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance,  industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings  of liberty.”  Vt. Const. of 1777, ch. I, art. 16. Another constitutional  provision, the so-called “Virtue” Clause, declared that “[l]aws for the  encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and immorality, shall be  made and constantly kept in force.”   Id. ch. II, § 41.  

Republican theory of the eighteenth century held that public “virtue” — in the broad sense  of moral restraint, public responsibility, and ethical values — was the  bedrock and essential ingredient of self-government.  See G. Wood, The  Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 68 (1969) (“The eighteenth  century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government  `cannot be supported without Virtue.'”).  As John Adams wrote, “`Liberty' .  . . `can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can  live and move without a soul.'”  B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the  American Revolution 135 (1992) (quoting John Adams).(FN7)

But I guess for Santorum, there's no such thing as virtue in the classical republican sense.  To him it only means, “thou shalt not use your genitals in ways of which I approve not.”  Oh, and for Dog's sake,don't teach kids science! 

ntodd

Confederate General Robert E Lee's adjutant, Major Walter Taylor, wrote of Special Order 191 (the Lost Dispatch):

What a fatality was there for General Lee! What an advantage to the Federal commander — to be instantly made aware of the division of his adversary's army, the wide separation of his columns, and to have the details of his plan laid bare!

There is no parallel to it in history. A victory for the South at that time meant the recognition by foreign powers of the independence of the Confederate States. Victory that seemed assured for General Lee trembled in the balance, and by this fortuitous incident eluded his grasp. It looks as if the good Lord had ordained that we should not succeed.

General Lee could manage General McClellan well enough under normal condi- tions, but this looks like an interposition of Providence to thwart his designs. Some will say that this check to the wheel of Confederate fortune was not due to the act of God, but to the carelessness of some one at the head- quarters of General D. H. Hill, to whom the copy of the order was addressed;* to which the fatalist will reply that it was predetermined and could not have been otherwise; and this contention will never be settled until the line is established that marks where Divine Sovereignty ends and human free-agency begins.

The next graf lays on the Lost Cause spackle pretty thick, fitting with Taylor's entire tome.  But this passage does seem to jibe with a general consensus that had SO191 not been lost, providing the Union with an intel boon, Lee's first invasion of the North would've yielded great fruit including, most likely, recognition by the UK and France, and thus independence.  One need not be a Southern apologist orHarry Turtledove to see this happenstance, whatever its cause, as the war's inflection point.

Of course history is as history did, but speculating about the what-ifs can sometimes be instructive if you're trying to learn how one might handle future situations differently.  Greater communications security, for example, gives one a battlefield advantage–something learned very well during WWII that impacted US commercial policy (regarding export of crypto mechanisms) for generations.  And being timid when having a superior force and a notion of the enemy's troop disposition dooms you to a longer, bloodier conflict–perhaps Stormin' Norman picked up on that at the Point.

Anyway, in a roundabout way I thought of this particular incident after reading Joan Walsh's recent piece on Obama's history lesson about compromise and slavery (which appears to be a theme with herthis week):

[I]t's worth noting Frederick Douglass's point of view on Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. It's complicated, as befits Douglass's passion combined with his long-view pragmatism, which we all should work to combine. In his memoir, Douglass wrote about anxiously awaiting the proclamation in Boston, with a group of abolitionists. Some feared Lincoln might not even go through with it, he admitted, describing the 16th president in words that today he might use to describe our own: “Mr. Lincoln was known to be a man of tender heart, and boundless patience; no man could tell to what length he might go, or might refrain from going in the direction of peace and reconciliation.” Douglass and his Boston group rejoiced when word of the proclamation came through. As he wrote at the time, “We shout for joy that we live to record this righteous decree.”

Then came some disappointment. “Further and more critical examination showed it to be extremely defective,” Douglass recalled in his memoir. “It was not a proclamation of “liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,” such as we had hoped it would be; but was one marked by discrimination and reservations.” Douglass and other black abolitionists also criticized Lincoln's decision to pay black soldiers who enlisted to fight for the Union a lesser wage than white soldiers. They wanted Lincoln, who they admired, to do more, and do it faster.

So there have always been people who, even if ostensible allies, try to push leaders toward the ultimate goal. ad  They serve an important purpose in the political process and as they shift the debate with their passion and persistence, they eventually help foster necessary change.

On the flip side, there are also always folks who don't appreciate the role that gadflies and activists play.  Returning to Lee for a moment, he wrote in response to a message to Congress from President Pierce:

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor,—still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

I'm sure most of the General's sentiment comes from the same disdain for “outside agitators” as was common through the ante bellum, post war, Jim Crow and modern eras.  But it inherently must at least be based in part on a disdain for people who criticize and/or disrupt the status quo.

Yes, it's certainly true that some abolitionists were extreme, and some extremely violent–Harpers Ferry comes to mind–which did “excite feelings” in the South and put Northern gradualitsts in uncomfortable positions.  That said, the problem is solely with the people resisting change and justice, not the people who refuse to wait for God or the President to finally do the right thing.

I wonder what it would've looked like had Quakers not founded the first anti-slavery organizations on this continent.  I wonder what it would've looked like had Elijah Lovejoy, whose death disturbed Illinois state representative Lincoln, had not published an anti-slavery paper.  I wonder what it would've looked like had John Brown not attempted to raise a rebellion.

Perhaps things would have gone down more or less the way they did, with a nation convulsed by war.  Yet I can't help but think that without people agitating for change, the entire foundation of our sectional strife would have been non-existent.  What would have pushed us to the brink if nobody had been doing the pushing?  What would've shifted the Overton Window from passive, Biblically-justified acceptance of human bondage to recolonization of Liberia to Equal Protection?  What would've helped slaves escape to Free States or created the pressure for the 13th Amendment and Emancipation Proclamation during a war fought to preserve the Union?

So even if abolitionists didn't end slavery per se–our Civil War obviously was the clincher–their activism was clearly a significant factor in the Peculiar Institution's ultimate demise.  Lincoln might have had to go incrementally with cautious compromise, he also had Frederick Douglass and Horace Greeley riding herd all the way for a valuable, political purpose.

I'd say the same goes for the civil rights movement, which ultimately pressured (and supported) Johnson and Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act.  And the gay rights/marriage equality movement that has had so many successes thus far at the state level.

It seems that much of the change happens so stealthily and with little notice in spite, or because, of the “in your face” agitation that some folks complain “sets the movement back”.  Activists push the bounds of what's acceptable and next thing you know, attitudes have changed and the unthinkable becomes political reality.  Activism is the gravity that bends the arc of history toward justice.

Similarly, as we don't generally think about gravitational forces' impact on our daily routines over the course of our lives, many people often aren't consciously aware of the benefits and successes of forces for change.  For example, it's easy to take for granted the 40 hour work week and other things labor won for us all, whether we belong to a union or not.

Thus one could say the Wisconsin protests failed, as state GOP passed their anti-working class laws.  But they did change the dynamic: what would've been an easy, silent stripping of rights was thrust into the sunshine, showing the entire nation what extremists are doing; a safe race for an incumbent GOP justice turned into a nailbiter against an obscure Democrat; Governor Walker's approval has tanked; the whole situation has fueled a major recall effort that could tip the balance of power in the state and could even change the national 2012 environment.  None of that would be true without people bringing their passion to Madison.

One might also say the antiwar movement has failed because we've been in Afghanistan longer than Vietnam.  Some folks have gone so far to muse that there is no antiwar movement mobilized against the former conflict, and some posit the reason is because it failed to end the latter.

I guess I take issue with both contentions.

First of all, it would be completely understandable if the movement had disappeared, but my friend Medea Benjamin forcefully notes that that's not the case: we've necessarily transformed.  There's also always been a lot of work that flies a bit under the radar because if it ain't a march, it's not so conducive to headlines, thus many pieces of the antiwar effort–counter-recruitment campaigns, regular local vigils, war tax resistance, etc–go unnoticed by the casual observer.

It's sad that DC protests are fundamentally all that many Americans see and think of when it comes to such a movement.  I've often heard the refrain, “but we marched in 2003 and it didn't prevent the invasion!”  Well, duh.  Marches don't stop wars–you need many more tools.

Anyway, sure we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, but again I have to wonder what it would look like if there were no antiwar movement, such as it is, especially when you consider how invisible Afghanistan was when the nation focused on Iraq, and how invisible Iraq is now.  Would popular opinion be so against wars with a relatively low American body count?  Would members of Congress like Peter Welch be proposing withdrawal and voting against appropriations?

And that's partly the source of my objection to a not-entirely-unpopular idea that the anti-Vietnam movement failed.  How else would we have gotten out without collective action?

Mass mobilization changed the dynamic.  Without it, LBJ wouldn't have stopped bombing, sued for peace and dropped out of the '68 race.  Nixon couldn't have ridden a wave of disgust against the Democrats' war with his secret plan and Vietnamization and all that (nor executed his precursor to Reagan's October Surprise)–and couldn't have been re-elected in '72 by claiming American involvement was ending.  

The Elites wouldn't have feared a nonexistent movement, wouldn't have recoiled in horror at Kent State and the resulting backlash.  People wouldn't have started voting for more dovish candidates.  Heck, we wouldn't even have a 26th Amendment had it not been for the antiwar movement.

So let's remember that criticism, dissent and activism are not only rights, but responsibilities.  There's always attendent risks, but you never know what will turn the tide so we must make the effort.  Remaining passive only guarantees failure–that's not fiction or speculation, but cold, hard fact.

ntodd

ThinkinProgressin:

GINGRICH: The fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches.  There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.

(emph theirs)

Much hay has been made of Newt's facially absurd statement vis Art III, Sec 1 of the American Constitution.  But to be fair as a professorial type who speaks extemporaneously, I actually get what he was trying to say: there is of course “one supreme Court” atop the judiciary but it is not, according to some interpretations, supposed to have supremacy over the rest of government, which according to some interpretations, an “activist” court that voids laws and such would have contrary to what should be.

Still, it's a stupid thing to say, and is the usual tripe about “legislating from the bench” and “OMG, if they say some law is unconstitutional, that's like having 5 lifetime tenured people in robes subvert the constitution unless it's Bush v Gore and other rulings we agree with!”  

There's this this Marbury character who might disagree:

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Tocqueville might have something to say as well:

The first characteristic of judicial power in all nations is the duty of arbitration…The second characteristic of judicial power is that it pronounces on special cases, and not upon general principles…The third characteristic of the judicial power is that it can act only when it is called upon, or when, in legal phrase, it has taken cognizance of an affair.

…

The Americans have retained these three distinguishing characteristics of the judicial power: an American judge can pronounce a decision only when litigation has arisen, he is conversant only with special cases, and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before the court. His position is therefore exactly the same as that of the magistrates of other nations, and yet he is invested with immense political power. How does this come about? If the sphere of his authority and his means of action are the same as those of other judges, whence does he derive a power which they do not possess? The cause of this difference lies in the simple fact that the Americans have acknowledged the right of judges to found their decisions on the Constitution rather than on the laws. In other words, they have permitted them not to apply such laws as may appear to them to be unconstitutional.

But lemme take a moment away from Newt bashing and admonish Think Progress to read Sec 2: the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Thing of it is, the dude's right that Congress can limit the SCOTUS's non-original jurisdiction.  And it has.

That includes the case TP cites: McCardle, wherein Congress granted the Court specific jurisdiction, then removed it.  Not to mention many decades earlier when SCOTUS was first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (start with Sec 13).  And today, the US Code:

CHAPTER 81—SUPREME COURT

Newt was also right in his Federalist citation.  Hamilton, Number 78:

[T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…

But, uh, he forgot the next immediate part:

[T]hough individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.

So Hamilton thought that the Judiciary wasn't so much a threat to Liberty, unless there's, say…a conservative Court when the Executive and Legislative branches are also conservative.  Like we had just recently, as I recall.

Continuing:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.

…

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

…

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.

Hamilton goes on to discuss contradictory laws, which is straight out of Montesquieu:

[T]he law is loaded with decrees that sometimes contradict one another…This is a necessary evil, which the legislator redresses from time to time, as contrary even to the spirit of moderate governments. For when people are obliged to have recourse to courts of judicature, this should come from the nature of the constitution, and not from the contradiction or uncertainty of the law.

Anywayz, the point is that the courts have an important role to play in our republic with a separation of powers.  We might not like their rulings–they've not gone the way I'd like WRT corporate power, they've not gone the way righties would like WRT healthcare reform–but we can't denigrate their purpose or part in our political process (alliteration not wholly intended).  And we might not like the fact that there are remedies such as Congressional action changing jurisdiction (not saying that's any better an idea than stacking the Court ala FDR), and amendments to override what the weakest branch proclaims (why I'd like an anti-Citizens amendment ala the 14th v Dred Scott).

So this is a fundamental reason why, even if the Democrats are corporatist bastards with merely a thin dime's difference between them and the GOP, you might consider the alternative is indeed at least a bit worse: Republican control of Congress with no Democratic veto in the Executive that enables court stripping to eliminate civil liberty protections.

ntodd

PS–Thanks to a FB friend for the crystal seed that formed the post title.

Freep:

Revision Eyewear in Essex Junction has won a three-year contract with the U.S. Army worth nearly $2 million to develop a next-generation helmet that will apply the “grim lessons” learned in Iran [sic] and Afghanistan to improve head protection, Sen. Patrick Leahy’s office announced Friday.

I'd say the grimmest lesson learned is “don't go fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”, but that's neither here nor there.  I suppose it's a good thing that we're investing monies to protect our unfortunate cannon fodder, and it's coming to Vermont, yet I can only focus on the further entrenching of the military industrial complex into our economy as opposed to investing in sustainable industries not predicated on a permanent state of war.

It reminds me of the old Standard Oil octopus:

We already have a lot of tentacles in our fair state, and $2M is actually small potatoes.  Thanks to Congressman Peter Welch:

• $10 million, XM312 machine guns, General Dynamics, Burlington
• [$4 million], Kiowa helicopter “warrior health system,” Goodrich Corporation, Vergennes
• $2.4 million, wireless sensors for Navy aircraft, Microstrain, Williston

There's even $1.6M in wool sock sales to the Marines.  Senators Leahy and Sanders have also brought millions of defense-related spending into Vermont for General Dynamics and Lockheed.  

While I've used the octopus metaphor, one might think of all these grants and earmarks as symptoms of a disease instead.  Chris Hedges cites Seymour Melman:

In “Pentagon Capitalism” Seymour Melman described the defense industry as viral. Defense and military industries in permanent war, he wrote, trash economies. They are able to upend priorities. They redirect government expenditures toward their huge military projects and starve domestic investment in the name of national security. We produce sophisticated fighter jets, while Boeing is unable to finish its new commercial plane on schedule. Our automotive industry goes bankrupt. We sink money into research and development of weapons systems and neglect renewable energy technologies to fight global warming. Universities are flooded with defense-related cash and grants, and struggle to find money for environmental studies. This is the disease of permanent war. 

…

Our permanent war economy has not been challenged by Obama and the Democratic Party. They support its destructive fury because it funds them. They validate its evil assumptions because to take them on is political suicide. They repeat the narrative of fear because it keeps us dormant. They do this because they have become weaker than the corporate forces that profit from permanent war. 

This disease causes the breakdown of our infrastructure, connective tissue and the body politic.  I'm all for Keynsian stimulus, but not of the kind that feeds a great, destructive beast whilst starving the rest of us.  As Joseph Stiglitz observed:

The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that.

Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain.

So the war profiteers (in which I include the financial and oil industries, amongst others) get richer and gain more control over our nation, economy and lives.  Meanwhile, we get table scraps: some lucky folks get to work for them, others go to war for them, and the vital government services upon which many depend get more and more depleted as a massive wealth transfer takes place.

This is why we fight…

ntodd

We write letters to Congressman Welch:

Peter,

It has been a long time since I've written to congratulate or offer constructive criticism.  Of late I have focused on Vermont's healthcare reform, restorative justice and, you know, trying to raise an active 21-month old boy.

While I've been unsurprisingly pleased with your efforts to extricate us from the quagmire in Afghanistan, I admit to being disappointed and puzzled by your support of the President's war in Libya.

Please, don't protest that it's not a war because there are no American boots on the ground.  And don't protest it's legitimate because it has NATO and UN backing.

It's a war of choice, it's a war without support from Congress and the American people, and it's a war that is not in US interests.  It's a war that kills innocent civilians, a war that costs us treasure we need at home, and a war that has no end game.

As we approach our Independence Day, I cannot help but note what John Quincy Adams (ask your colleague Michelle Bachmann about him) said on July 4th, 190 years ago:

“America well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…”

I entreat you to work diligently to end this war as you have our others.

ntodd