Paradigm Shifting to the Left

A quick glance at the history of political parties in America reveals a very interesting trend. When one party has been in power for a prolonged period of time, and a major disaster occurs for the United States, a paradigm shift occurs. Political power is transferred.

Democrats (previously called Democratic-Republicans, but same basic party ideology) controlled the White House from Jefferson until 1860, when Springfield’s favorite Republican son won the Electoral College despite winning no southern states. Lincoln’s party would be in power until FDR defeated Herbert Hoover during the midst of the Depression. The Democratic stay on top of the mountain would be short lived, as JFK and LBJ help remind the world that America was not invincible. Vietnam was a knockout punch for the Democratic Party, with Nixon’s massacre of McGovern in 1972 as the exclamation point.

Even through Watergate, the Republicans have never looked back (both Carter and Clinton, although both Democrats, were very moderate).

Iraq has been compared to Vietnam numerous times. Is this a valid analogy? The true test will come in November of 2008. If the nation nominates and elects an anti-war Democrat, and the Democrats are able to retain a majority in Congress, perhaps the paradigm shift in this country will begin. This, in turn, could lead to a liberal social agenda that would make Republicans cringle. If Iraq is as disastrous as the pundits will have you believe, it could usher in a new era of Democratic dominance. Iraq could permanently kill the Republican Party.

Protection or Privacy infringement? Look to the 9th!

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
- The ninth amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court made a sweeping decision that forever changed the way that the government acted in accordance to the American family. Justice William Douglas introduced a new word into the Court’s lexicon: privacy. According to the majority opinion, the defense of privacy was a penumbra, or shadow, of the protections of the Bill of Right. The Court did so by invalidating a Connecticut law that banned the usage of contraceptives, emphasizing how the Court had a responsibility to protect marital and family relationships from government interference without strong justification.

Sally Lieber, a California lawmaker, has proposed a law that would make spanking a child under the age of three years old a crime, punishable by a fine and/or one year in prison. Lieber, who represents the district encompassing San Francisco, believes that corporal punishment victimizes helpless children and contributes to society’s addiction to crime.

Most Californians are skeptical (the proposal polls very poorly in the Golden State). The one thing that people dislike more than Uncle Sam getting involved in their personal lives is when he tells them how to raise their children. In addition, the law would be a nightmare to enforce.

A classic battle is set: Griswold’s legacy of protection of privacy vs. the state’s power to protect the defenseless. Who gets to decide how to punish the children of America? Is the slope a little too slippery for comfort? What’s next, a national bedtime for children under the age of ten?

The debate over the proper role of government in the lives of the citizenry rages on. Patriot of ’76 would love to know where you stand.

What can Daniel Shays teach us about Iraq?

In 1783, the experiment began. The Revolutionary War had ended with a shocking victory for liberty and self-government over tyranny. Now that the Americans had their own independence, what were they to do with it? The answer was the Articles of Confederation, our nation’s first constitution. The Articles were, essentially, the anti-British government. There was to be no executive branch (too much like King George III), no taxation, and no national army. A tremendous amount of power was given to the individual states.

A few years after the treaty of Paris, our young nation was in severe debt. Each state was responsible for paying its own debt, with Massachusetts owing the most. The state raised taxes to an astronomical level on land, which greatly hurt many farmers. In 1786, Daniel Shays became one of these men.

A former colonial in the Revolutionary War, Daniel Shays now found himself bankrupt and disenfranchised (voting was tied to property ownership back then). In addition, many farmers were faced with the prospect of debtor’s jail if they were unable to repay their original loans. Shays and his fellow farmers made a decision that changed the course of history. After many meetings at Conkey’s Tavern in Pelham, Mass., they decided on insurrection.

Shays and his men were able to seize control of several governmental buildings, even several courthouses, and sustain their rebellion until 1787. Due to lack of funds, Massachusetts was unable to raise a militia to stop Shays. Without a standing army, or the power of taxation to raise one, the federal government could only stand and watch a group of angry farmers as they hijacked the nation for several months. Only after private Boston bankers could raise enough money could a militia be hired to stop Shays and his followers.

Shays rebellion taught the young nation a very powerful lesson. No democracy can survive without two things: Law and Order. When government does not have a monopoly on force, democracies crumble. When militias are able to use terror and violence to gain control of basic governmental institutions such as courts, then “liberty for all” is impossible.

Several weeks ago, President Bush ordered 21,500 troops into Iraq, in order to secure Baghdad from terrorists and militias. Shays Rebellion was the impetus for the U.S. Constitution, which “provides for the common defense” and “insures domestic tranquility”. Will the surge provide law and order in Iraq so that democratic institutions can flourish? Will this new addition of American forces stop all militias and terrorist groups from hijacking the young Iraqi democracy? Your answer to those two questions most likely depends on your feelings on the war and your level of faith in our current administration. However, if the surge does stabilize Iraq, perhaps then we can all agree that history has a funny way of repeating itself.