Some have called on the President and the Senate Republicans to compromise on the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia: The President should nominate a “moderate” candidate whom the Senate would then confirm. But any such compromise is likely a bad deal for Republicans. In modern times justices have tended to drift left, unless they were anchored in the conservative legal movement or were already on the left. Ideological ratings of justice year by year show overwhelming evidence of leftward movement. Thus, a moderate today would very likely become at least moderately liberal over time.
There are two reasons for this leftward drift. First, the current of the bar runs left. Thus, justices are surrounded by a dominant legal culture that pulls in one direction. This is not the first time that such a strong current has frustrated one side of the political spectrum. Despite their 24-year control of the Presidency, Jeffersonian-Republicans were unable to change the course of the Federalist Supreme Court. After nineteen straight years of Democratic-Republican Presidents, the Court even upheld unanimously the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States—the bête noire of Thomas Jefferson.
Second, the accolades of our elites go to justices on the left.
The next two Republican presidential debates, including this evening’s, will focus on the economy, a testimony to the weakness of our recovery from the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the continued relevance of James Carville’s campaign advice to Bill Clinton over 20 years ago (“It’s the economy, stupid!”), and the all-but-universal assumption that American Presidents can, should, and must create the conditions for widespread prosperity.
A naturalization address given last week by Professor Kevin Hardwick in Beaverdam, Virginia at Scotchtown, the governor’s residence of Patrick Henry during the War for Independence.
In the late 1790s, during the presidency of John Adams, Americans conducted a bitter public debate over the meaning of patriotism. The dominant political party at the time, the Federalists, confronted an emerging opposition, headed by Thomas Jefferson. The opposition, the Democratic-Republican party, sharply criticized the Federalists, and condemned both their policies and their motives.
Large corporations help those of modest incomes by selling low-cost goods to the many. They help employees by providing relatively stable jobs, by offering a discipline that many workers cannot impose on themselves, and providing career opportunities that small businesses frequently do not. Walmart to me is the paradigm example. It has been partially responsible for the happy fact that the cost of living has been going up more slowly for the those lower on the income scale than those higher. It has employed over a million people and not generally those who have backgrounds in prestigious education or other evidence of high human capital endowment.
But some commentators have doubted whether such large corporations are good for our republic and our civic culture generally. This concern has deep roots in American history, harking back to the Jeffersonian vision of a nation of sturdy and independent yeoman farmers. Before the modern era some even thought to make the antitrust law the legal means to sustain an economic world of “small dealers and worthy men.”
Nevertheless, on balance large corporations are good for our civic culture, at least given the kind of modern government we have. First, these corporations do indeed still promote a work ethic, particularly in a culture where government schools do such a bad job of this. Even modest jobs at companies socialize people into work and get them started on productive life.
Second, large corporations offer the closet approximation many people will have to civic associations of the kind Tocqueville celebrated.
My current podcast is a discussion with a most excellent scholar, Michael Paulsen, on the book he has coauthored with his son, Luke Paulsen, introducing the U. S. Constitution to the general reader. Good as the book is in many respects, it did surprise me with its embrace of the idea that the Constitution of 1787 was a pro-slavery document.
The first canon of Progressivism is faith in human reason. Politics for the Progressive is a science not in the Aristotelian but in the Baconian sense. Political questions are not prudential complexities to which human judgment approaches better or worse answers but rather moral rigidities with right or wrong solutions wholly within the ambit of the all-powerful human mind. The distance from that schematic to administration by experts is brief. In fairness, that portrayal substantially attenuates the chain. But a recent family visit to Monticello served as a reminder that, however ironically, Thomas Jefferson is one of the chain's first American links.…
The bitter disputes sparked by Indiana’s version of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” and the controversies that provoked the act, are the latest episode in our ongoing culture war. Its sources are twofold: the moral clash between what we call the “Left” and the “Right,” and the increasing scope of government.
Denise A. Spellberg, Associate Professor of history and Middle eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of the highly regarded work, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr. She was involved in controversy in 2008, when she reviewed the galleys of a novel, The Jewel of Medina, for Random House, and criticized the work on many grounds including warning a number of times that the book might instigate violence among some Muslims, specifically against Random House and its employees. Random House then withdrew publication of the book, but the novel was subsequently published in a number of countries, including the United States.
In this work with the eye-startling title, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders, Spellberg investigates all manner of references among the founding generation to Islam in order to assert two themes 1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.
Thanksgiving is a peculiar holiday, at least in the modern world. Its roots are religious, and the American nation is, at least in law, secular. Its very name speaks of thanks, or gratitude, and gratitude is an ancient virtue. Indeed Aristotle speaks highly of it. Even so, or perhaps for that reason, it is very American. In his Thanksgiving address in 1922, President Coolidge called it “perhaps the most characteristic of our national observances.” He was not wrong for, as Chesterton wrote, America is “a nation with the soul of a church,” and Abraham Lincoln called us an “almost chosen people.”