Issues or America????

[Sigaba]

MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:

• Included Bush the Younger's use of signing statements.
• Placed his discussion of the current president into the context of the "imperial presidency."
• Developed the argument that the separation of powers reflected a gentlemen's agreement among the founders in which those in power would not seek to find and to extend the limits of one branch's power at the expense of another.
• Addressed his core assumptions by asking the question: Is American political philosophy more reflective of Locke or of Hobbes?
• Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.
• Discussed how a pragmatic approach to governance threatens the American way of life when that approach has been a defining characteristic of American political culture since before the War of American Revolution.
• Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.
• Discussed the impact of ideological rigidity on the current political environment.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:

• Included Bush the Younger's use of signing statements.
• Placed his discussion of the current president into the context of the "imperial presidency."
• Developed the argument that the separation of powers reflected a gentlemen's agreement among the founders in which those in power would not seek to find and to extend the limits of one branch's power at the expense of another.
• Addressed his core assumptions by asking the question: Is American political philosophy more reflective of Locke or of Hobbes?
• Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.
• Discussed how a pragmatic approach to governance threatens the American way of life when that approach has been a defining characteristic of American political culture since before the War of American Revolution.
• Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.
• Discussed the impact of ideological rigidity on the current political environment.

Dude, there is only so much space one can use in writing an article. Now if he was writing a book....

[tonyz]

Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.

Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.

Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.

Sarcasm. Because beating the hell out of people is illegal.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.

Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.

The essay is 720 words. That's almost three pages of double spaced text. Mr. Sowell is a skilled writer. Had he wanted to, he could have stepped away from the "America was going great until the liberals arrived" narrative and thrown in one or two brief paragraphs that went along the lines of "This is nothing new." Such an approach could have cued readers into the ever so slight possibility that changing the guy in office in and of itself is not going to change the tone of politics in America nor the effectiveness of the federal government.

IMO, if a polemicist--on the left or the right--is going to make a political argument based upon an interpretation of American history he ignores the "weeds" at his own peril.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:
Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.

For about 74 days and a wake-up.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by MR2

Sarcasm. Because beating the hell out of people is illegal.

How sustainable is either approach given the fact that the Democratic Party draws more support from highly educated Americans than the GOP?

Just because one sits on the right side of the aisle doesn't mean that one's arguments are automatically correct.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.

The case of Andrew Johnson vs Congress over Reconstruction and the Tenure of Office Act is a good one.

Richard

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Such an approach could have cued readers into the ever so slight possibility that changing the guy in office in and of itself is not going to change the tone of politics in America nor the effectiveness of the federal government.

Perhaps Sowell believes, as I do, that changing the man in the Oval office will in fact change the tone - emanating from the WH.

R&R, while unlikely to be perfect, should lead change that will certainly reduce the size and scope and cost of government. IMO, that alone, will make government more effective. Lord knows we have tried the tax and spend and spend and spend and spend approach far too long. For example, look at where that formula has taken California, economically speaking.

No, Sowell is indeed speaking to a certain segment and clearly that segment does not appear to include you. The only weeds that many Obama supporters truly care about are of the smoking variety. No matter...I'm confident that R&R bring weed killer to the equation.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

How sustainable is either approach given the fact that the Democratic Party draws more support from highly educated Americans than the GOP?

Just because one sits on the right side of the aisle doesn't mean that one's arguments are automatically correct.

Wow Sigaba.