Replies

LS and 1010RD, both of whom I have profound respect for, regard the primary results in Missouri to be sui generis and probably inconsequential. On the other hand I regard the results to be significant and part of a larger pattern. Is it coincidence that both LS and 1010RD oppose the Article V movement while I support it?

I see the pattern repeated in South Carolina, Mississippi (albeit by treachery but the involvement of the establishment there is only more blatant than elsewhere) Kansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. Each one of these losses can be rationalized by localizing the races but, considered cumulatively, they constitute a pattern of undeniable failure of reform. If we believe that the Republic is hurtling toward a fiscal cliff, if we believe our liberties are being usurped by executive tyranny, then we must be avid for reform. Sadly, this pattern of failure likely signifies that the primary process is not the vehicle which will lead us to saving reforms.

But primaries are only the first half of the two-step process, the second half occurs on the first Tuesday in November when we can expect an election and we will then hope to see Republicans take back control of the Senate. Will a November victory produce saving reform?

We don't have to speculate, we know how the Senators will behave in January 2015 because we saw most of them in action for decades especially during the Bush years when we had the House and Senate and used our majorities to explode spending, add more trillions to the debt than ever before, put Medicaid on steroids, pass prescription drugs, and invade our schools. The list of progressive triumphs in these years goes on and on. We are now expected to exalt hope over experience and believe that the electoral process will put the same people plus a few more back into control, but this time they will somehow be different.

I believe that the electoral process in November offers no more realistic hope that did the primary process to facilitate saving reform.

I would not like to believe that my discouragement about the outcome in Kansas is colored by my pessimism about the primary process as a vehicle for reform. Equally, I would not like to believe that fear of the Article V movement would color anyone's beliefs about how we have fared overall in the primary process.

The virtues or hidden traps of the Article V movement are worthy of debate and I, of course, relish the chance to participate with you two.

You think you have a foolproof "lockbox" to keep the Article V delegates in line. I say such a thing doesn't exist. The Founders knew it. All they sought to do with federalism and with separation of powers was to make change so slow, and so compartmentalized, that even when such men (and women) inevitably came into office, they would be checked by time and by the difficulty of enacting their crap.

Shorcuts to "take back control" of the system have no, repeat, no good outcome in history. I cannot think of a single revolution---maybe you can---where well-intentioned revolutionaries did not lose control of the process. This includes the Constitutional Convention, although I think they did the best job imaginable. The Russian democratic revolution was quickly overturned by "insiders." The English Puritan revolution was controlled by Cromwell. And so on.

I again restate my primary opposition to an Article V: if you cannot control REPUBLICAN primaries; and cannot win elections; and cannot ensure the appointment of conservative judges; then why in the world do you think that "just this once" we'll be able to control the people at an Article V convention?

I will state again that the failures in Kansas and before that in the NV and DE senate races were primarily that the Tea Party in its exuberance did not carefully vet candidates; that the vetting process itself (we call it winning and holding lower offices) was viewed as "part of the problem." Well, no it's not. It is the fundamental way people establish their seriousness, their ability to overcome the inevitable dirt of a campaign, and their ability to make tough choices. I wish my friend Milton had run for a House seat.

If you think back to the Republican Revolution of 1994-5, yes, we won a few Senate seats, and a couple of people (at least one, Ben Nighthorse Campbell) switched parties. But that revolution took place at the HOUSE level.

The inevitable then happened: some got fat and happy; some, like J.C. Watts and Steve Largent, either grew disenchanted or lived up to their term limits promises. Some became more liberal. A handful stuck it out, eventually moving up the ranks (Kasich as governor, for example).

So my take is that the GOP certainly can reform itself, but it is a much longer and more serious process than the Tea Partiers I have known care to engage in.

We have a God-given document in the Declaration and the Constitution. We have the same via scripture. All three have been totally distorted and ruined by the actions of men. What in modern man makes you think we could improve on any of those?

Take a look at the history of the Amendments to the Constitution. Which have not been abused? The 14th made a mess to fix one. The 18th helped enrich organized crime and corrupted our politics beyond belief. The 21st reversed and in some ways worsened the situation by way of section 2. The 11th laid the foundation for the abomination of sovereign immunity. Then there is the 23rd and 26th neither of which worked to improve our republic. Need I mention the 16th and 17th?

At the heart of liberalism is the rush to “make things better”. I’m a Burkean when it comes to public policy. We need to build upon the good traditions while undoing the bad and replacing them with the better. We have a process in place for this. If conservatives rush from bandaid to bandaid we’ll just get more of a mess. I don’t see any history of changes to the Constitution which makes me confident that we’ll get there.