Do progressives believe in States’ Rights and the idea of Federalism? Not Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.
During a discussion today about the Filibuster sponsored by the American Political Science Association, and shown on C-SPAN, Ezra Klein made a very radical assertion about the issue of States’ Rights and one that should worry conservatives who treasure the idea of federalism.
Ezra Klein states at about 1:30 into the discussion the following odd statement:
I am a Californian so I have some radical views on how the Senate is constructed and the one think I would note on this is that it is my understanding of the initial compromise is that you have all these little States and you need to bound them into a Republic. They may not want to do it and they may want to secede and you make a pretty bare knuckled political compromise to give them all this power. And eventually as we go on through history it begins to recede as you become much more of a nation in order to fight King George… I don’t understand why people think that States are a particularly a particularly useful with which to represent.
Klein expounded on this point in a blog post titled “Repeal the 17th Amendment?” over at the Washington Post where he wrote:
During our discussion of the filibuster today — which you can stream over at C-SPAN’s Web site — Heritage’s Brian Darling talked a bit about the Senate’s important role as a voice for the states. Responding to a questioner, he went so far as to say he’d consider repeal of the 17th amendment, which would mean that senators would again be elected by state legislatures rather than voters.
First of all, the Senate was envisioned by our Founding Fathers as a body to represent the interests of the States. Solutions for America, a product of The Heritage Foundation, argues for more federalism and explains that progressive governance has lead to an ever expanding federal government intruding into the traditional realm of the States:
In the American plan of constitutional government, the national government was never supposed to have all of the power or make all of the decisions. Indeed, most powers of government were located, and the decisions that affect citizens’ day-to-day lives were to be made, at the state level. This relationship was turned on its head over the course of the 20th century. Ever-increasing amounts of regulations and laws emanating from the federal government have centralized and bureaucratized political rule in America, undermining the balance of federalism and threatening self-government.
The Senate is the embodiment of the idea that States, as distinct entities, should have a say in what legislation passes the federal legislature. The House was to be the House of the people with 2 year terms and the Senate was to be the chamber that represented the interests of the States with members holding 6 year terms. Our Founders set up a system where State legislatures appointed two Senators from the State to represent the interests of the State in one chamber of Congress.
They wanted the Senate to represent the interests of the States as as part of the Great Compromise of 1787. James Madison wrote about the reason for the division between the House and Senate when he wrote in Federalist 39:
The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress.
The 17th Amendment was approved by Congress on May 17, 1912. This change in Constitution removed the power of States to appoint Senators and provided for Senators “elected by the people thereof, for six years.” This change still preserved the idea that States should have distinct representation in our constitutional democratic republic. Klein seems to find that idea offensive.
Klein does not like the idea that California, with a massive population, has the same representation as North Dakota, a state with a small population. In short, Klein argues against the idea of Federalism.
From Klein’s Washington Post blog entry:
I’ve never understood this sort of thing, and said so in the panel. The Founders didn’t wisely orient the Senate around states. They pragmatically oriented the Senate around states. But now that we’ve been the United States of America for a while and none of the states seem likely to secede, the fact that California has 69 times more people than Wyoming but the same representation in the Senate is an offensive anachronism, at least to Californians. I went on to say that at this point in history, if we wanted the upper body to be based around quotas, then income, age bracket and education made more sense than states. Then I came home and read Kevin Drum’s post echoing Larry Bartels’s research (pdf) showing “that the responsiveness of senators to the views of the poor and working class is….zero. Or maybe even negative. And that’s true for both parties. The middle class does better — again, with both parties — and high earners do better still.” Conversely, the body’s responsiveness to the views of North Dakota’s farmers is really incredible. Back in February, Annie Lowrey* wrote a piece estimating the Senate’s composition if it was organized around income, gender and race, and age.
I disagree with Klein for many reasons. We live in a federal republic and one that was formed to represent the will of the people and the interests of states. Federalism is the understanding that the State as a unit is a better means of governance for the traditional police powers of a state than putting all power in a federal government. Our Founders were wise and they wanted to see a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. They also crafted the Great Compromise to make sure that one chamber of the legislature was purely democratic in nature and the other represented the distinct interests of different States.
Klein also made a statement at the end of his attack on the idea of States Rights that is offensive to those who revere our Founding Fathers. Klein made an offensive comment that he is wiser than men who spilled their own blood to form our union.
At about 1:33 into this clip Klein trashes our Founding Fathers.
I think our veneration for the Founders is something that occasionally perplexes me.
This is a truly outrageous statement and is evidence of Progressives distain for our Founding Fathers. This argument is also evidence of Progressives push to centralize power in one federal government with not regard for States Rights, in the sense of a State having distinct representation in the Senate. Clearly we had a strong difference of opinion on the Senate filibuster, yet the statement from Klein about the Founders and the Senate should provide a glimpse into the agenda of progressivism.
KnightsofMalta
Steve Maley
Caleb Howe
Ezra [JournoLIST] Klein is unhappy we can't move right to Communism
fpete13527 (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 7:15PM EST (link)Great job on panel and great job enlightening people as to the pure disdain theat the entire left (DemSocialist Party) has for this country.
Klein makes me want to vomit. It makes me even sicker to know that Obama and the Dems are even much further to the readical left that his disgrace to humanity (Klein) is.
Thanks for going into the heart of the scum discussion Brain and schooling them.
Come on now fpete, don't you understand,
cactusjack Friday, September 3rd at 9:16PM EST (link)the man (Ezra Klein) has a beard. He’s like, learned and wise. Oh wait a minute, it’s a scruffy beard, isn’t it? That makes him a little bit dangerous and “cool,” besides already wise. Let’s see now what was it he was saying about like,um, states and stuff? /snark/
Thank you Brian Darling for trying to inject sanity into the room how could you not get wretchingly ill with some of the things said? And did you notice how many beards or scruffy beards there were in the audience? (on the men, I mean)
The Great Compromise was brilliant, it has kept this Republic from flying into pieces. It is the hurdle Europe cannot get over to make a European Union, if they truly wished it. It gives this Republic the possibility of inifinte expansion. 220 years on we are still considering from time to time adding to the family, and it is possible. Astounding.
Kowalski
cactusjack Friday, September 3rd at 9:19PM EST (link)some beards are truly cool. Like when they are on Joe Miller.
"...some beards are truly cool..."
RedBeard Saturday, September 4th at 10:11AM EST (link)I concur.
Standard-bearer for grouchy curmudgeonry since, oh, 1975 or so.
I certainly think mine is :)
qixlqatl (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 11:14AM EST (link)If I let it grow for a month or so, I look like Hagar the horrible..except I’m not that big
“Yet, Freedom! yet thy banner, torn, but flying,
Streams like the thunderstorm against the wind.”
George Gordon Noel Byron
son of kowalski
cactusjack Saturday, September 4th at 8:48PM EST (link)by that I mean, the Framers were prescient to see that if more states came into the Union, odds were they would turn out to be what we call middle size or small states. The Great Compromise is the hook to get them in, that they won’t be trampled by the existing Union or big States. Puerto Rico fits the mold for consideration. It has worked so well, no one has even noticed it. I suppose the theoretical problem will be some territory of super state size wants to come in, but says “wait a minute only 2 senators we’re getting ripped off.” Welcome to feeling how it feels to be TX, NY, CA, FL.
Common Collectivist Argument
lukematthews (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 7:47PM EST (link)They don’t like the idea that people within a geographic area may have common interests that need protecting. Geography is an accident of nature to them. They believe people are divided by categories they can more easily manipulate, like class. Class is an entirely artificial construct with no basis in reality. Who’s poor? Who’s rich? Who’s black or white or oppressed? These are castes they can alter at a whim to change society more easily. Such ‘arbitrary’ things such as history and space are alien to the Marxist/Conflict model.
This is why they’re all so internationalist in scope. If they can manipulate world populations based on their artificial constructs, they can easily run society. The fact Chad exists in a desert and Congo in a jungle is simply an address change. People and their situations don’t matter. Categories of people matter. We are all just pieces on their chess board.
the 17th is right up there with Prohibition
streiff (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 8:09PM EST (link)as a monumentally bad idea.
There are so many federal encroachments on our liberties and pocketbooks that would never have happened if senators were responsive to needs of their state legislature rather than independent power centers.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Don't mention that...
Kudzu (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 10:54PM EST (link)An amendment to the ORIGINAL Constitution was actually repealed. The left will lose its collective minds. Prohibition also came out of an odd mix of religion, health care, and social groups who wanted to end the terror of growing alcoholism. It is tantamount to today’s anti-fast food nazis,who parade calorie counts as if they are the death nail for the country or the environmental assassins who clamor for the end of humanity. Congress and the States passed the amendment and it went into devastating effect. Thankfully we got moonshine and NASCAR out of it but we also got today’s modern mafia and organized crime. They saw an avenue into the black market and made a move… just like today’s drug trade (and no I don’t advocate legalization- another topic).
But in the end it was repealed because of why exactly? Society rejected it because it gave the release that the elites could not foresee. Just like today’s elites want to ban everything that we see as “fun” or “tasty” they would have us become eunuchs to hormones, taste buds, and college parties.
Back on track. The left chastises us for bringing up repealing certain amendments or defining certain clauses in them. Yet, they forget that Prohibition was a change and so was the 21st Amendment.
It always did take two of you to take down one of me. – Jo Bob Priddy, North Dallas Forty.
Now on at http://kudzu630.wordpress.com/
The States had problems
ss396 Saturday, September 4th at 12:25AM EST (link)The 17th Amendment was in response to the States’ legislatures getting caught up in their own partisan battles, and being unable to agree on the Senatorial appointment(s). States were going without having two Senators.
Whether the 17the Amendment was the right solution is another matter. But the 17th Amendment was not a Federal usurpation of States’ rights; it arose from the inability of the States to conduct their proper business.
(Governments…sigh)
If you pay someone to sit on his butt, you can’t be surprised when he does.
appreciate your points
streiff (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 8:29AM EST (link)but reading comprehension really could be your friend.
No one, certainly not me, called the 17th a “federal usurpation.” The result of the 17th has been exactly that. Unfunded mandates would not happen in an environment where senators were elected by state legislatures.
Lots of us took civics in high school.
The “inability of States to conduct their proper business” can often be a feature rather than a bug. If states were truly concerned about being without a senator they’d fix the process. Using a constitutional amendment to fix this was overkill.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
5
aesthete (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 8:33PM EST (link)To both of your posts. Localism requires some representation on the part of developed local governments to work properly.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Return power to the states
Rick_Caird Sunday, September 5th at 2:26PM EST (link)Agreed. It is the 17th amendment which has pushed power to the federal government. If there were no 17th amendment, this national health care monstrosity would never have gotten through the Senate because it dumps a lot of Medicaid costs onto the states without reimbursement. and the “mandate” is pretty well universally disliked (except in Massachusetts where they can’t seem to get to work anyway).
Applied to the UN...
towellman Friday, September 3rd at 8:29PM EST (link)So china and india would also deserve 4x the US representation at the UN? I mean if states are passe, then nations before long are too,
Klein is hardly being original here
RedBeard Friday, September 3rd at 9:30PM EST (link)Ignorant, yes. Perhaps stupid as well. But not original.
I heard the same collectivist crapola when I was in college in the ’60s. Of course, it was mouthed by a freshman in the living room of the fraternity house, and he was waving a can of PBR to emphasize his brilliance.
It’s even money that the aforementioned mouthy kid is now a tenured professor, trying to pack the same foul muck into fresh brains. Or perhaps he’s a writer for a major Old Media newspaper.
Standard-bearer for grouchy curmudgeonry since, oh, 1975 or so.
dont get it
danmiles (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 9:33PM EST (link)I have allways wondered how the 17th ever got passed in the first place .It goes directly against the constitution and should be struck down by the scotus.Just because it made it to ratification doesnt mean it should stand.
We cant take the high ground if We cant stand on the high ground.
Long be the Usa
It was passed in 1913 - during the "Progressive Era."/nt/
cactusjack Friday, September 3rd at 9:54PM EST (link)ty cactusjack
danmiles (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 10:24PM EST (link)understand when and why just not the how
Credit where Credit is Due
cactusjack Saturday, September 4th at 2:07PM EST (link)Casting a jaundiced eye towards the progressives and Progressive Era is something entirely new, that I learned from watching Glenn Beck last year (dont have time anymore). In fact to me it seems it is a carrect view he has, the progressives in the early 1900s were a kind of iconoclastic, Euro Socialist- lite and viewed the US Constitution as something old to be pushed out of the way.
Several Amendments and laws passed
aesthete (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 8:37PM EST (link)at the federal level at that time under the auspices of removing entrenched interests and nationalizing aspects of public morality and behavior: the income tax, Prohibition, the beginnings of the War on Drugs, and several other laws passed under this general program at the time.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
technically
kyle8 (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 10:34PM EST (link)it cannot be unconstitutional, because it is part of the constitution.
But yeah, it was a low point in USA history. It was a pure example of people being fooled by an appeal to one of the worst emotions, envy.
they were assured that it would only be 3%, it would never go up, and it would only affect “the rich”.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
??? OK
merryj1 Saturday, September 4th at 2:35AM EST (link)Are you talking about the 16th Amendment?
Its not unusual
Kudzu (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 9:56PM EST (link)Liberals despise the federalist system. They would of been right with keeping a king and passing laws via royal edict than the representative body we’re supposed to have. Klein is showing the same kind of disdain for smaller, less populated (thereby less wealthy) states, that many Virginians and New Yorkers felt in the founding of our nation. They were the land owners and felt they would sacrifice more for the republic and deserved more representation. However, they were as Klein put correctly, practical men… and for good reason. If you give too much authority or say to one state over another you create dissension among the several States. He can not see the wisdom in that because he’s a fan of the all powerful central government…
Klein points out that “states are unlikely to secede”. So did many in the 1840s when the nation was divided by political lines of great social and economic importance.
The elites never understand the simple man who wants to be left alone and treated fairly by his government.
It always did take two of you to take down one of me. – Jo Bob Priddy, North Dallas Forty.
Now on at http://kudzu630.wordpress.com/
unfortunately some conservatives also
kyle8 (Diary) Friday, September 3rd at 10:36PM EST (link)do not like Federalism. It always seems that liberty comes up against the desire to control your neighbor’s life.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Hence...
Kudzu (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 3:30AM EST (link)The category of “progressive” which is nothing more than a regressive step towards tyranny/oppression. We struggle against it but there are times when we on the right must “let go” and this mainly points to those who feel the government should be a moral compass for the nation (versus a state of ship for the Republic).
It always did take two of you to take down one of me. – Jo Bob Priddy, North Dallas Forty.
Now on at http://kudzu630.wordpress.com/
I would argue. . .
msctex (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 3:48PM EST (link)that there is no such thing as a true Conservative who does not support and revere Federalism. If such a creature is purported to exist, it stands under another term.
It is another example of the extreme importance of semantics. We must have terms which we can all agree on as to precise meaning, or we will get nothing done because we will be collectively confused as to our intentions.
Sorry to belabor the 'F' Ezra deserves in American History
kevininabq Friday, September 3rd at 9:58PM EST (link)But anyone who believes that the Compromise of 1787 was necessary to unite the nation to fight King George…whose forces had already surrendered six years earlier at Yorktown and who signed a peace treaty two years later needed to be held back. At least once.
He is not the only one
bobmontgomery (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 12:27AM EST (link)I believe that a lot of what comes out of these people’s mouths is not the result of study and learning but is anecdotal, misapplied, juvenile and off point.. Plus, States’ Rights for most lefts is code for racism. If anyone bumps into Klein in the future, tut-tut him with something like “Ezzie, old bean, we are not the United PEOPLE of America, we are the United STATES of America.” He will of course call you a racist bigot.
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
but...
mrmises Saturday, September 4th at 7:03PM EST (link)Let’s not forget the War of 1812. The threat of another British invasion following our victory in the war for independence was very real. The Compromise of 1787 was critical to mounting our defense. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was essentially impotent with regard to mounting an effective, well prepared national defense. The federalists realized the shortcomings of our first attempt at national governance, and they strengthened the states’ ties. The federalists recognized that there must be a balance between state sovereignty and centralized authority. The Great Compromise was essential to protect the rights of the minority (the interests of the small states) against the tyranny of the majority (large states). In the absence of a bicameral legislature, smaller states may not have signed the Constitution. In that case, the defense of the Union against British or other foreign invasion would have relied on what essentially amounted to the voluntary participation of state militias.
The Constitution provides the authority to the central government to provide a truly national defense in a way the Articles of Confederation did not. Without the Great Compromise, the Constitution (at least in its current form) does not exist, our young nation would have been extremely vulnerable to foreign invasion. When the British did brazenly challenge our ability to defend our new nation, it was the Constitution that allowed us to defend ourselves.
If Ezra is saying it out loud
Loren Heal (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 7:15AM EST (link)then you know it’s a meme on the Journolist.
If the Senate should represent the people according to population, then it’s just the House, and there is no need for a Senate.
But he really sees no need for States. Accidents of history, they are.
And what’s with this House of Representatives? I mean, we have telephones and cars and jets and the Internet and Skype now. Why do we need Representatives, when we can tweet the Press Secretary directly about our potholes?
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
The left doesn't like legislatures in general
renny (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 8:30AM EST (link)The left likes autocratic government a la the former czars of the Russian Empire, which is part of an explanation why the current administration has 40 czars and no end of appointments in sight.
little o likes recess appointments of his most controversial nominees because he doesn’t want the Senate to ask on C-Span questions of ethics for his L:abor Relations Board buddy (SEIU guy) or the new Medicare head who likes euthanasia.
There is the anecdote of Clintonite sycophant Paul Begala marveling at Clinton’s set aside of half the West as perpetual wilderness as law at the “stroke of the pen.” But such actions are exactly why the Founders broke from Great Britain. Clinton’s EO’s supposedly totaled 50,000.
Overall, the left really likes dictator-thugs like Castro, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin, and are only a little more shy about tyrants like Amin and Mugabe and Pot-Pol because they never were circumspect enough in their pursuits of cannabilism and the like to make like Hahvahd scholars in the process.
Pragmatic
doncorleone Saturday, September 4th at 9:14AM EST (link)The sycophantic state-run media outlets seem to glom onto certain words and then run them aground. From the primaries to the present, all we heard about obama that he was such a pragmatist, or how pragmatic he is. I don’t think that klein and his ilk have even looked up what that word means. After 19+ months of his astute business acumen, and lawyering skills, he would more accurately described as the “anti-pragmatist”. I’m sure we all remember “gravitas”. Where’s obama’s?
WaPo Hiring Requirements:
aposematic Saturday, September 4th at 10:46AM EST (link)1) must be at least a Liberal, a Marxist gets bonus points
must hate America’s Constitutional Republic
2) must be an Ivy League graduate or very good impostor
3) must have been at the top of their class in the art of lying
4) must be a very good suck up and kisser
5) must flaunt your ideology with impunity
6) must bow and parrot incessantly to your masters
7) must be morally defunct
9) must promote all Foreign Countries over America
drum roll please…
10) must be an AGW fanatic, an AGW lunatic gets extra points
aposematic in VA
Don't forget the venerable George Will
mrmises Saturday, September 4th at 7:10PM EST (link)He wrote an excellent article about the failing environmental movement that addresses many of the pretentious, self-righteous arguments Klein makes. He dismisses the ‘technocrats’ and experts that have planted themselves inside the Washington establishment. As any true conservative knows, you can never underestimate the Law of Unintended Consequences.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090304151.html
Great Comments
Brian Darling (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 1:50PM EST (link)After the debate, I had an opportunity to chat with Ezra. He is a good natured and nice guy.
I want to put conservatives on notice that there is a coordinated effort to repleal the filibuster. I may post on this later today. There have been a flurry and blizzard of posts from the left to argue for the filibuster to go away. The left is going to attack it in January of next year in an effort assert control in the Senate. Be prepared.
Awesome comments on this thread. Great discussion of the 17th Amendment. Have a great weekend.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that the filibuster is going to be abolished over the past 30 years, I'd be rich beyond my wildest imagination.
Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (Diary) Saturday, September 4th at 3:19PM EST (link)The Dems are just rattling their sabers – trust me, the “old guard” of the Senate understand that every two years each party is in peril of losing its majority status. The smart ones (an oxymoron, I know, but bear with me) know that if the filibuster is done away with, the minority party loses ALL of their influence.
It’s just the rantings of spoiled children who haven’t thought things out to their natural conclusion. Let them have their tantrum; eventually they’ll calm down….
Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride…..
Klein stated: "But now that we’ve been the United States of America for a while and none of the states seem likely to secede,"
RedBeard Saturday, September 4th at 2:00PM EST (link)The man is tempting fate there. He seemd oblivious to the fact that his sort of centralized statism is precisely what might fuel more discussions about secession as a remedy.
Standard-bearer for grouchy curmudgeonry since, oh, 1975 or so.
"Ezra Klein...maligns founding fathers"/"Washington Post...maligns founding fathers"
jsanzone (Diary) Sunday, September 5th at 12:39AM EST (link)No news there.
http://www.2010blog.net
20/10 Blog
The Founders had it right
Adjoran (Diary) Sunday, September 5th at 4:38AM EST (link)This was a well thought out plan, not some political compromise cobbled together to get the small states on board (although there certainly was some such effect on the thinking). The idea is to safeguard the federal republic by dividing power between the people as represented in the House and the States as represented in the Senate. The 17th definitely disrupted the delicate balance, diminishing the influence of the States, and so by default increased the power of the federal government. It should be repealed.
As to Klein, I have no idea how he came to the position of prominence he enjoys. The guy is a hack. I blame, at least in part, the short-pants brigade at NRO, who seemed to adopt him as “a liberal we can talk to” – which I presume means one with a good enough expense account to pick up the lunch tabs.
Legend has it
Adjoran (Diary) Sunday, September 5th at 4:44AM EST (link)that Jefferson once challenged Washington on the point in the debate over the Constitution, arguing the House was enough, and demanding to know “Why we need the Senate?”
Washington replied, “For the same reason I stir sugar into my coffee: to cool it. And so, we need the Senate.”
For decades I thought the Father of our Country might be a bit daft, since one would suppose one adds sugar to sweeten, not to cool, coffee. But some years ago I read an account of 18th Century etiquette, which noted it was considered rude to blow on your coffee or stir it with a spoon to cool it, but acceptable to stir in sugar.
The practice became to dip one’s spoon into the sugar without necessarily taking any, and then to stir the coffee, cooling it without offending social standards.
So Washington was quite right – he DID stir sugar into his coffee to cool it!
Mr. Washington is the gold standard for presidents
RedBeard Sunday, September 5th at 4:52PM EST (link)All others need to strive to be as worthy. Some have tried, some have come close, but no one has surpassed him.
And then there are those (for example, our current one) who stomp with muddy boots over Mr. Washington’s legacy.
Standard-bearer for grouchy curmudgeonry since, oh, 1975 or so.
Founding Fathers feared tyranny
omegared5 Sunday, September 5th at 1:56PM EST (link)Unfortunately, Mr. Klein thinks a little tyranny now and again is a good thing. As long as it is the right kind of tyranny, the eco-friendly, new world man, help balance the old marxist dielectic tyranny. Anything that prevents this tyranny from reaching its fruition is to be scorned. Thus Mr. Klein’s disdain for the Senate and the founding fathers. Heck why even bother with a House of Representatives, why not just have two consuls, one from the West Coast and one from the East Coast. Then let them appoint all the technocrats and cronies they need to run the govt.
Ezra Klein could not find his ass with both hands and a map
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Friday, December 31st at 1:09AM EST (link)This two-bit WaPo hack is a nothing and a nobody. MSNBC is definitely the right place for him to go showing off his intellectual wattage, such as it is.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO