“Winning” is Losing. For All of Us.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 15 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at http://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link.

*******

Yesterday, a long-time commenter on the TenthAmendmentCenter.com website had this to say:

“Being a purist is generally another way of saying being a loser in a large Federation.”

This was in regards to the presidential candidacy and foreign policy views of Ron Paul.  The idea being that since Paul’s foreign policy ideas were, according to our commenter, far out of the current mainstream of republican voters, that Paul needed to shift his positions to ensure the potential for being a winner.

When I respond here, I’m certainly not limiting my viewpoints to the candidacy of Ron Paul, to viewpoints on foreign policy, or anything else for that matter.  Instead, I think this applies to everything politically.

Haven’t we had enough “winners” in this country?

For over a century, we’ve had winners on the left, and winners on the right.  And not a single one of them – not one – has followed the constitution as they were supposed to, and as we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand – every issue, every time, no exceptions and no excuses.

The 10th Amendment was the exclamation point on the constitution – reinforcing the fact that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government.  Not the other way around.   And, we created that government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes…and nothing more.

James Madison – you might have heard his name associated with the moniker “father of the constitution” – put it this way:

“The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Few and defined?

Well, depending on how you count it, there’s approximately 30 powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, most of which reside in Article I, Section 8.

Thirty powers.  That’s all.

But, if you were somehow able to read through all of the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, you would have to go through tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations.  And it’s not like presidents have been waging epic battles with Congress over the years, vetoing bill after bill and having those vetoes overridden.  Instead, almost nothing gets vetoed.   Even Ronald Reagan, the president that many constitutionalists idolize as their champion, only vetoed 39 times in an eight year period.

Five vetoes per year?  Nah, no thanks.  To me, that’s as good as zero.

At this point, what should a president do to stand up for the constitution?  If we want to err on the side of the constitution, let’s keep it simple.

A constitutional president should pretty much veto everything!

Take a hike.  That’s what a constitutional president would say to Congress on almost everything they pass.

And hopefully, this brings me back to my initial point – that it’s not OK to be a kinda-constitutionalist.  Or a mostly-constitutionalist.  Or what we almost always have, a partisan-constitutionalist.

Whether they’re from the left or the right, conservative or liberal – or anywhere in between – all politicians claim to support and follow the constitution.  And every now and then, most of them say something right.  But, it’s very little and there’s almost no consistency.

From both sides we’ve seen opposition to violations of your liberties on some issues, but not on others.  We’ve
seen opposition to some undeclared, unconstitutional wars, but not on others.  We’ve seen support for limiting government actions in some areas, but not in others.  And sadly, the support and opposition often changes based on which political party is holding power at a given time.

But that’s best left for another conversation.

The fact of the matter, though, is this – both sides have allowed, turned a blind eye to, and even actively promoted massive constitutional violations for far too long.

Year in and year out, politicians tell us that there’s some kind of emergency, real or pretended, and they need to have new powers to prevent all kinds of horrors and death.

Corporate Bailouts, Social Security, Environmental Regulations, the Patriot Act, the Department of Energy, Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, the Department of Education, Massive Military Spending, the Department of Energy, Foreign Aid, the War on Drugs, FEMA, the FDA and too much more to list – have all been sold to us on fear.   And all of them are unconstitutional.

When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the constitution or break them outright – even if it’s for a good reason, or to hopefully stop some outcome YOU are afraid of – and you let them do it year in and year out for decades – sooner or later you’ll end up with politicians who feel that the rules, the constitution that is, don’t apply at all.

And if we’re not already there today, we’re pretty damn close.

That’s why I vehemently reject our commenter’s opposition to being a purist.  Oppose the ideas, maybe.  Disagree with the principles, sure.  But oppose a position because it might not be a winner?  Never.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

That’s why our motto here at the Tenth Amendment Center is so simple.  The Constitution.  Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

I’m hoping that you, like me, are sick and tired of people who advocate winning above all else.  ”Winning” is what’s gotten us where we are today, and “winning”‘ has really been losing for all of us.

Like my parents used to tell my brother and I when we fought as children – “you’re both wrong” – it’s time for people who love liberty to do the same to democrats and republicans alike.

Both sides have been wrong for far too long.  And every day we tolerate it for the sake of winning, we add one more link to the chains of our own shackles.

About Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
13 comments
monorprise
monorprise

No doubt being purely true to the Constitution is necessary, but being pure to any ideology dictating a set of policy's is not a good idea in a large federation.

The larger the Federation the more potential diversity (thus divisibility) on any given issue, and thus the smaller the range of agreeable tickets of issues.(down to non-existences) In a government which covers a large range of issues the odds of any one ideology purely applied across the board just being palatable to a mere majority of the federation goes down with the larger size of the Federation.
Hence as a generality it can and perhaps should be said that being a purist in a large federation is a way of saying loser. This is in many respects unfortunate, because tickets that do work are likely to be incoherent and twisted results of a history of previous factional compromises.

The more ideal solution, as advocated by the 10th amendment implicitly is to keep the centralized government limited to as few issues as possible so that the political ticket of issues may be as short as possible. But short of that a purist who throws out them compromises is most unlikely to win, certainly not without making an entirely new set of compromises(thus ending purist status).

Sanity
Sanity

New guy here. Ron Paul loses me, like most of America, because he talks like everyone instantly knows all the steps he and other Libertarians would support. Most of "Sound-bite America" hears each step as if it can stand on its own, and it can't. The problem with purists is that one can't switch off huge departments overnight and take us where we should be. When we are 100 steps off-track, a real leader has to be a purist in their heart but be willing to GUIDE us there. The problem is accountability to make sure they take two steps in the right direction to compensate for what should be small steps that people THINK are helping us.

I'm still waiting for that "going through the budget line by line" rhetoric too many campaigns have promised. Really! With hand held devices, it disappoints me that lies and voting records aren't called on the spot.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I like the fact that Ron Paul is shaking up the GOP orthadoxy and actually being one of the first republican that I can remember who is a proponent of not using the military. Its refreshing to hear sometimes from a conservative or someone on the right.

Monorprise
Monorprise

This is something I enjoy about his campaign too. Its good to see someone challanging some of the past compromises we have made. Couldn't happen at a better time for republican ether. If the Democrats let their hate of republicans drive them to reject states rights they will invariably loses big time.

There is a reason both political parties have long had in their platform a support for States rights. Nobody wins when power is centralized except Washington D.C. So I suspect one way or the other the democratic party will be force to either point out the republican hypocrisy, or (if we have anything to say about it) play one upmanship with them.

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

so you have no problem with all the constitutional violations that come out of DC then, right? Because that IS what you are advocating for.....more of the same. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul or any other candidate, but instead, with the fact that you are tolerant of the idea of violating the constitution.

Sanity
Sanity

As to "violating the Constitution", the Founders would recognize that this country is far larger than what they designed the Constitution for and that the States are far more dependent on each other that they were then. Things change and so did/should the Constitution. That being said, it should only change to correct abuses of power and I do believe 90% of the government needs vast correction back in the direction of "That don't work nationally. Let some states prove what does work, and then suggest fixes to other states"

Sanity
Sanity

Less centralized absolutely. I think the Supreme Court should be reminded of their job and have a little less job security, but that is a different issue. The scale of government would have changed since the founding of this country, so that should be recognized on what is essential or not, but every department should be measured for their true worth. If their original purpose is mute, and if they expect their government job to be secure, then they should be retrained for a purpose that is needed. Talk about an industry that needs a lay-off or restructuring!

monorprise
monorprise

I would say that if anything has changed it has been that as we have grown in size & diversity we have developed a need for smaller less centralized Government not more.
But I tend to agree the Constitution is not negotiable, the question is how to enforce it. Winning a Federal Presidential (or congressional) election will not get us there, anymore then picking the prefect 9 Federal judges. A constitution dividing power and thus limiting the power of different sides needs to be enforced by the stakeholders upon each other.

Sanity
Sanity

You’ll have a hard time pinning me down with "You have no problem with..." statements. I'm simply stating that the country is not where it SHOULD be and that the path to get there is not a simple shut down of most of the national (and some State) departments. The "more of the same" rhetoric doesn't help either. I said the problem is lack of accountability. They break campaign promises and keep their job. No path is straight, so there are steps that have to be taken that appear in the wrong direction, but there has to be justification for it and there has to be an exit/ending plan to those steps. Currently there is neither.

Sanity
Sanity

Sorry. I meant... At least two steps in the right direction for every step in the wrong direction or steps that people THINK are helping...

TLR
TLR

Americans want someone different. We're tired of the same thing. It doesn't work. Just lies to keep us pacified, and they keep on doing the same thing the same way. We are DYING as a country. That's why Ron Paul is so popular. We are finally speaking up and standing up for the constitution while we can. If the media and puppeteers and polls and fixed elections will just get out of the way, America will have President Ron Paul.

lnardozi
lnardozi

Why are we in such a pickle in the first place? Ron Paul tells us how to fix the problem by following the Constitution, in particular the parts that give the states power to make their own laws and us the power to migrate freely to any state.

The greatest benefit our government gives us BAR NONE is the ability to relocate to another state at ANY TIME with all legally acquired possessions. When our government has FEW federal powers, as it should, 99% of the body of law comes from the state you live in. What does that really mean? It means if you are a Tea Party type and want limited services and low taxes, you can move to a state that has them - whenever you want! Similarly, if you are of a more liberal persuasion, you can move to a state with single payer health insurance, paid college benefits, safety nets for the unemployed and a host of other benefits - just by moving to another state. Whether conservative, liberal or centrist you are FAR more likely to find a state run the way you'd like it than you would with a one-size-fits-all plan.

Further, the viability of these governments would also rest on the business environment they provide to business owners and consumers both. Things that cannot be made economically in a high tax state can be made in a low tax state and shipped in. High value products are more likely to be made in somewhat higher tax states because their employees are more in demand and so garner better working conditions.

The REAL point is competition. Just as competition brings us cheaper computers and cell phones, so would competition bring us better cheaper government that truly serves the end user.

mark
mark

Well said, in fact this is the idea of freedom that most of our founders had in mind especially Thomas Jefferson.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] your consideration, I give you an excerpt from this article on the 10th Amendment Center. I was at a meeting recently where I was urged to be willing to [...]