browsing deer
Silver Member
A very good and powerful column by some guy I never heard of before
High stakes in the coming Trump-Cruz clash
Mark Krikorian,
Cruz believes our constitutional arrangements are basically sound but that the leadership class that manages those arrangements has got to go. Trump, on the other hand, seems to reject those arrangements altogether – Rich [Lowry’s] “post-constitutional” label, or even “post-republican” (small-r).
Trump’s support comes from people who have given up on our existing “regime,” in the political science sense of the word. The Tea Party’s efflorescence of constitutionalism was, as Rich writes, “a means to stop Obama” – in other words, to stop lawlessness and rule by decree, which is what constitutions are for. But, as Rich continued, constitutionalism “has been found lacking” – Obama, and the Supreme Court, have pursued extra-constitutional (i.e., illegal) tactics and prevailed. Repeatedly. On momentous issues that immediately affect every American.
[T]he Left has ignored the strictures of the Constitution, and succeeded in imposing its will on the rest of the country. It’s no surprise that a large share of that rest of the country is going to conclude that adhering to the Constitution’s strictures is a form of unilateral disarmament, like following Marquis of Queensbury rules in a knife fight.
f we don’t want the November election to be between two post-constitutionalists, where we vote simply on which Duce will rule over us for the next four years, we need to persuade first GOP primary voters, then the broader electorate, why the preservation of our republican norms is vital to America’s liberty, independence, and prosperity. We can’t do that simply by pointing out what a nitwit Trump is.
This is what worries me so much about Trump. We are, in the putative vote between Hillary and Trump voting between Hillary's Crassus and Trump's Caesar
High stakes in the coming Trump-Cruz clash
Mark Krikorian,
Cruz believes our constitutional arrangements are basically sound but that the leadership class that manages those arrangements has got to go. Trump, on the other hand, seems to reject those arrangements altogether – Rich [Lowry’s] “post-constitutional” label, or even “post-republican” (small-r).
Trump’s support comes from people who have given up on our existing “regime,” in the political science sense of the word. The Tea Party’s efflorescence of constitutionalism was, as Rich writes, “a means to stop Obama” – in other words, to stop lawlessness and rule by decree, which is what constitutions are for. But, as Rich continued, constitutionalism “has been found lacking” – Obama, and the Supreme Court, have pursued extra-constitutional (i.e., illegal) tactics and prevailed. Repeatedly. On momentous issues that immediately affect every American.
[T]he Left has ignored the strictures of the Constitution, and succeeded in imposing its will on the rest of the country. It’s no surprise that a large share of that rest of the country is going to conclude that adhering to the Constitution’s strictures is a form of unilateral disarmament, like following Marquis of Queensbury rules in a knife fight.
f we don’t want the November election to be between two post-constitutionalists, where we vote simply on which Duce will rule over us for the next four years, we need to persuade first GOP primary voters, then the broader electorate, why the preservation of our republican norms is vital to America’s liberty, independence, and prosperity. We can’t do that simply by pointing out what a nitwit Trump is.
This is what worries me so much about Trump. We are, in the putative vote between Hillary and Trump voting between Hillary's Crassus and Trump's Caesar
