Allegedly, one of the hallmarks of the modern conservative movement (which I will grant is difficult to adequately define) has tended to be a sincere and deep distrust of government. However, of late, it seems that there are a lot of conservatives who wish to give the government radical powers.
Two cases come to mind:
1) Ward Churchill and Tenure/Academic Freedom: It would seem that there are a number of conservatives who, because of Ward Churchill, want to empower state legislatures, or some other, ill-defined body, to determine the quality and worthiness of speech. Setting aside whether or not they think Churchill should go, they have used the situation to attack tenure, professors and academic freedom. For example, Newt Gingrich (and alleged small “g” conservative) wants to empower somebody (it is unclear to me as to whom) with the ability to root out “anti-Americanism” in our universities.
Precisely how is empowering governmental entities, at whatever level, with the ability to police thought in any way construable as a small government conservative position?
2) Jose Padilla: There are many (including Rush Limbaugh on the radio today, another self-avowed small “g”er”) who sees absolutely nothing wrong with granting the President the power to categorize a citizen, and then hold that citizen indefinitely without any due process. How can this not be seen as ultimately as anything other than a gross expansion of executive power? The answer, typically, has something to do with the fact that Padilla is a terrorist. Of course, the problem is, we don’t actually know with certainty that he is a terrorist until there is a trial or some type of substantive due process.
And in response to the idea that since the government says he’s a terrorist that means he mus tin fact be one, I would ask: remember Richard Jewell? Are we really that trusting of the government that just cuz they say a guy is guilty, that we accept that fact and move on?
How is that being a small government conservative?
On the first point: yes, conservatives general oppose government usurpation of powers rightly belonging to the people. But our greatest battle over the past 70 years is exclusively with the federal government–sometimes Congress, but usually the courts–usurping power from the states not specifically granted it by the Constitituion, thus prohibited by the 10th amendment. Since the Churchill matter involves the state of Colorado and its employee, we are say Colorado should be free to hire or fire a person based on that person’s performance and adherence to the rules of the workplace.
Still on your first question, if you must insist that the 14th amendment nullified states rights, then show me where in the US Constitution Congress, or the states’ versions of Congress, are granted the power to establish universities?
Since the Constitution does not delegate education to the states nor to the federal government, the state of Colorado has no business running a college, much less hiring a teacher. Therefore, if the states and the federal government are the same, by the Constitution we must close all of the state run schools. In the process, of course, Ward Churchill would lose his job.
On your second question about substantive due process, I’ll plead nolo contender.
Excellent question, though.
Comment by Bill Hennessy — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:10 pm
I just typed for 20 minutes, only to have my words disappear in cyperspace. I’ll answer question one on my site where there is no charater limit.
Cordially,
Bill
Comment by Bill Hennessy — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:12 pm
Bill,
You miss the broader philosophical point, which is that governments, whether national or state, when given too much power have a tendency towards tyrannical rule. My question was not one about federalism, but about governmental power generically.
And the Tenth Amendment would easily allow for public univeristies, just as it allows for K-12. The whole point of the Delegated Powers concept is that certain enumerated objects are given to the Feds, but everything else (unless expressly forbidden) is reserved to the states and the people.
You really don’t have an argument there unless you want to ague that states can only do what the Constitution says they can do, and since the Constitution says nothing about states can do, by your argument they can do nothing.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:18 pm
I would add the Terry Schiavo case to this list.
This sounds like a county / district court matter. How did the FL governor, legislature, various levels of appealate courts, various US congressmen, State agencies, etc. get involved in a family court matter?
Because conservatives demanded it, that’s why!
Comment by Buckland — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:20 pm
Steven,
On your second objection to my argument, I agree with you, actually. It was an argument of the absurd. (I think the conduit of the 14th is also absurd.) Yes, states do have the power to establish schools the Constitution. The federal government does not.
Taking the government in abstract, I would say that governments should not be running schools at all–K-12, universities or any other. If the 51st state were mine to run, and were the laws of the land as they were in, say, 1810, I would have no state department of education. Leave it up to the parents or cities or counties to run schools. Were I to have my own city in my own state, my city would leave education up to the people. The people could form neighborhood schools, apartment complex schools, or anything else they wanted, but I wouldn’t tax the people on Bradley Avenue to educate the kids on Scanlan Avenue.
In the ultimate “conservative” world, then, Ward Churchill’s tenure would be a private contract between himself and the private school at which he worked. IF they chose to fire him, that’s their business.
Comment by Bill Hennessy — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:34 pm
That sounds like the ultimate libertarian world, to be honest.
In utopian dreams I hae considered such possibilities, although I will confess that they are tad less appealing than they once were to me. I have decided that there are such things as “public goods” and that education is one of them–although I would hardly promote the current system in my utopia.
And yes, in a perfect world the universities wouldn’t be public at all.
Still, I am asking in real world terms.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:43 pm
In real world terms, the state has the power the people give it. If the people of Colorado give the state the power to hire and fire professors, the state may exercise that power. I think,though, that the power to hire must ensure the power to fire. You cannot tell the state, or the people, that once they’ve hired someone he is their dependent for life. I can find no economic, moral, or philosophical justification for such a position. Therefore, if the state of Colorado may hire a professor, it must be able to fire a professor.
In practical terms, the very idea of tenure should be abolished or the language of the contract carefully worded so that asinine statements that fall outside the professor’s expertness and that bring a discredit upon the institution constitute a breach. While Ethnic Studies is a pretty vague subject (after all, Euclid was Greek, right?), advocating terrorism in magazine interviews is arguably outside the study of ethnicity and certainly brings discredit upon the the University of Colorado.
Comment by Bill Hennessy — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 8:52 pm
One other name to add to your list of those harrassed by the feds: Wen Ho Lee.
Comment by Kappiy — Tuesday, March 1, 2024 @ 10:14 pm
#1 - That is an interesting quote and a good catch BTW. I would LOVE to hear Newt answer your question. He is not one to make up policy statements on the fly in his head. (he has a reputation for thinking about policy 24/7) Still, I wonder if he heard your question, what he would say.
Barring an extraordinary explanation on his part, I can’t support it… I suspect, if he would ever admit to a faux pas, that would be it.
#2 I’ve been wrestling with in my own head. As much as my gut says “lock the bastard up,” my brian knows better. You’re right.
Comment by Paul — Wednesday, March 2, 2024 @ 7:39 am