A Lesson for American’s on their Constitution

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

– The Tenth Amendment

Based on this there should be no argument over the constitutionality of Obamacare. Unless the power to force people to purchase health-insurance is specifically mentioned in the enumerated powers of the federal government, which it isn’t, the federal government cannot force people to do so. The distinction that it is simply a tax and not a mandate is a false one as if you tax any activity/good too highly you stop people from being able to pursue that activity or buy that good, it would clearly be unconstitutional to tax private media establishments out of existence. The federal government also only has the power to tax in ways specifically mentioned in the constitution, hence the need for the sixteenth amendment.

Another key aspect of the US constitution is that the supreme court of the United States is not the sole voice determining the constitutionality of a law, Congress and the President both have an equal duty to uphold the constitution and so do the states. Indeed in the early years of the American Republic before Lincoln began America’s long journey down the road to tyranny, a belief in the right of the states to pursue a policy of nullification was widely held. This was a view held by both Thomas Jefferson and the “father of the constitution”, James Madison, as outlined in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in 1798 and 1799 respectively, in response to what they viewed as the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Act. One would have thought that the man who wrote the constitution might be a rather informative voice on such a matter.

Most of the founding fathers would be horrified to think that the American people are willing to allow a branch of the federal government be the last voice in determining the extent of the power of the federal government. The states do have the right to nullification, it is implicit in the framing of the constitution and if conservatives today are serious about opposing Obamacare they would do well to start by reading the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.

South Carolina should be considered a success for Ron Paul

Many pundits in the media would have you believe that the result in South Carolina was a poor showing for Ron Paul. While he did finish last with 13% of the vote, I think it is worth drawing attention to the fact that he increased his share 3.25x since 2008, reinforcing an argument I have made before that the Ron Paul movement represents a rapidly growing minority and quite possibly the future of the Republican Party and American politics. Ron Paul has also increased his share of the vote from 2008 to 2012 from 10% to 21% in Iowa and 8% to 23% in New Hampshire, 2.1x and 2.9x his respective 2008 results. If we take the average of these three results Ron Paul has increased his share of the vote by 2.75x since 2008. If this pattern continues Ron Paul could cause serious problems for the other Republican contenders. Using this multiplier on his best 2008 results we can project that in 2012 he will gain:

38.5% of the vote in Nevada

49.5% in Maine

44% in Minnesota

68.75% in Montana

57.75% in North Dakota

30.25% in Kansas

and 46.75% in Alaska

Now admittedly it is unlikely that each state will have exactly 2.75x the 2008 vote share for Ron Paul, however it does not seem too preposterous that his share of the vote across America will rise by this amount and if it anywhere near approaches the swing already seen in the first three states to vote, then Ron Paul will be a very happy man.

The Development of a 7th Party System?

It is possible to break the development of the US party system into several eras, each being dominated by two political parties and each lasting for a few decades before some seismic political shift breaks the status quo with the system rearranging itself. The first of these systems dominated the early years of the Republic with the Federalists of Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson and Madison. The former broadly speaking favoured a stronger central government and the latter sound money and more limited government. This paradigm was broken around 1828 with the Federalists losing prominance and the Democratic Republicans splitting between the Democratic party of Jackson and the Whigs of Henry Clay. The main issues of contention in this era were economic interventionism as the Democrats favoured Laissez Faire and sound money and the Whigs a greater degree of government involvement in industrialisation. The parties were also increasingly split along religious and ethnic lines with Germans and Catholics voting strongly Democratic and the Whigs being favoured by the growing evangelical movement in the North: a pattern of religous and ethnic influence on politics that was to become increasingly important.

This Second system collapsed as the abolitionist movement grew and the Republican party took the place of the Whigs, the regional, ethnic and religious divides increased over this period and saw the Republican party become the party of the Evangelical Yankee vote in the North-East and the South along with Catholics and German Lutherans in the North and mid-West vote for the Democrats. This alignment was interrupted by the civil war when the Democrats were virtually wiped out in the North but by the 1880s this alignment has returned. There were many reasons for this party affiliation: the South disliked the pietism and abolitionism of the Yankee’s, their hatred of the Republican party only intensified by the civil war, the Germans and Catholics disliked the prohibitionist movement within the Republican party, the Germans also objected to the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican’s and were great supporters of the Gold standard, a central part of the Democratic platform. An important thing to note about the late 19th century is that the demographics were moving strongly towards the Democratic party with the increasing numbers of Germans, Italians and Irish. Had the  party system stayed the same the Democrats would have become dominant.

However, as before, things changed quickly in the election of 1896 with William Jennings Bryan seizing control of the Democratic party, pushing for prohibition and campaigning against the gold standard, in the process alienating much of the democrats support in the North. At the same time McKinley dropped prohibition from the republican party and supported the Gold standard, in so doing winning the German vote. This opened the way for the “progressive era” and the fourth party system, dominated by the Republicans, during this period the Democrats only really gained support from Southerners and the Irish.  This alignment held until the new-deal when the Democrats became the majority party and this in turn only broke down in the 1960s when the civil-rights movement caused the South to abandon the democrats for the republicans. This has changed slightly in the mean time but we are essentially still in the same party system where the Democrats are prima facie the party of big government and social programs despite being slightly more anti-war and liberal on social issues, and the republicans are nominally the party of Business, interventionist foreign policy, fiscal prudence and social conservatism. I use caution with these party characterisations because whatever the rhetoric the resultant policy once in government is surprisingly similar.

Understanding this ever changing nature of the American party system is important and I hope my brief summary is enough to appreciate my argument about the American politics of today. It seems to me that the situation is ripe for another shift in the political dynamic of the United States and perhaps the development of what might one day be called the 7th party system. Regardless of whether Ron Paul wins the republican nomination – and I believe he probably won’t – the movement he has created since 2007 will only increase in significance in the coming years, he himself has talked about his run not so much being a candidacy for president, but a cause.

The really significant thing about Ron Paul is not that he is garnering support within the Republican party, but that he so clearly doesn’t fit the party dynamic, he attracts the support of both Republicans and Democrats and incurs the wrath of both. If the libertarian movement continues to grow within the Republican party – perhaps someday to dominate it – it will alienate many of the current factions and interest groups within the party. Similarly many Democrats who once endorsed them for their anti-war and pro-civil liberties stance will start to realise there is an alternative. This is what makes it likely that we will see a realignment in American politics: 5 years ago one could characterize the Republicans as fiscally and socially conservative and democrats as fiscally and socially liberal (ignoring the fact that fiscally conservative in America actually means classically liberal), once this dynamic breaks down and one party is socially liberal and fiscally conservative  many will find themselves ill at ease with their party. Just as in the past when major shifts in one party pushed people to change allegiance, should the Republicans take up a libertarian ideology this would have much the same effect. The social conservatives would leave the Republican party, so might big business such as the military-industrial complex and Democrats who primarily supported them for their social liberalism will move to the Republicans. This will likely leave a Democratic party with only the people who valued their big-government welfarism higher than social liberalism and this may leave a gap for the social conservatives to move in.

This is all highly speculative and being on the wrong side of the Atlantic it is difficult for me to judge the mood on the ground but I do not see it as too unfeasible that the big government republicans might form an alliance with the big government democrats. Indeed, it would be a much more logical alignment than there is currently, the libertarian ideals of social and economic liberalism (fiscally conservative for Americans) should be seen as two sides of the same coin. Likewise Democrats who support government intervention in economic affairs might be expected to have equally little qualms about government intervention in private affairs and vice-versa for the social conservatives.

All of this is dependent upon the Ron Paul faction of the Republican party continuing to gain ground but I have little doubt that they will. When looking at polling it is more important to look at the momentum than the numbers as they stand. Paul maybe represents 15-20% of the Republican party, but that is probably more than double what he did in 2008. As America’s financial condition continues to worsen and she continues to be bogged down in foreign wars and see her liberties legislated away, there can only be one direction of support for Ron Paul and the probable heir to his movement, Rand Paul. I would not be surprised to see a Rand Paul candidacy in 2016 or 2020 win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

Why Ron Paul supporters should want Obama to win

While it might initially seem a contradiction in terms, the cause of liberty may well be served best by another four years of Obama. This is based on the premise that while Ron Paul could do very well in the Republican primaries he is unlikely to win the nomination at this time. If this is a correct prediction and Romney wins the nomination, I would contend that in a Romney vs Obama race, while Romney may be a marginally better option, the economy will continue to worsen under a Romney presidency as he essentially represents a continuation of the current policy of massive deficits, foreign wars and unprecedented government intervention in the economy.

There is a parallel in this between UK and US politics. The Labour government from 1997-2010 inherited from the Conservatives; a growing economy, falling unemployment, expanding manufacturing and a negligible budgetary deficit. As a result the blame for the economic shambles we were in by 2010 should have been, and largely was, firmly placed on the Labour party. Then in come the Conservatives but unfortunately the Conservative party of today is a shadow of its former self: David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher. This is the parallel of Mitt Romney, neither the Tories led by Cameron in the UK or the current GOP led by Romney in the US are going to be willing or able to take the vital and drastic measures necessary to avoid the coming economic collapse.

The problem with this is that it muddies the water over who and what policies are to blame, in the UK Labour left office before their Keynesian economic policies could be seen for the disaster they were, and the worsening economic condition in the UK is beginning to be viewed by the public not as a result of the continuation of the policies of Labour but rather the result of reckless free market austerity economics perceived to be relished by the Conservatives (see my blog yesterday for why this is complete nonsense). Essentially when the next stage of this economic crisis plays out, it will not be seen as clear cut as to which party and policies are to blame and we may well return to a Labour government in 2014-15. Had Labour won in 2010 and overseen the complete decimation of the British economy, possibly with the collapse of the pound, we might have kept them out of government for a generation, such as happened in 1979. This may have created the opportunity for a much more radical Tory government in a few years.

This is what Americans must be wary of, if the economy is still trundling along in November and Romney is elected only for the economy to completely collapse 6 months later, perhaps after some token tax and spending cuts, America may well arrive at the same situation we are currently enjoying here in the UK. It will be unclear to the public unclear where the blame truly lies possibly resulting in a return to the democrats in 2016. Over the longer term it could well be more desirable for Ron Paul types in America if Obama wins in 2012 and when the economy is well and truly sunk under his second term, America may finally elect a President willing to make the reforms and cuts necessary to fix America’s economic problems.

The true significance of Dr Ron Paul

This morning the MSM woke up delighted and supporters of Ron Paul disappointed, the former because they now can continue to ignore the doctor and the latter because despite Paul coming first in many polls running up the the Iowa caucus, he only came a close third with 21.4% of the vote. However as an observer from across the pond I would urge the many Paul activists and supporters in America not to place too much emphasis on a slightly less than hoped for result that nonetheless is more than double what Paul achieved in 2008. One could argue that even should Paul overcome the odds and somehow win not only the Republican nomination but also the Presidency that the greatest legacy of his campaign would still be his effect on the intellectual climate not only in America but across the globe.

The fact that the Paul campaign has such a large proportion of young people, that Paul has to a large extent defined the topics of debate for this years nomination and pushed by his consistency and weight of argument many issues that were considered wacky or fringe in 2008 into the mainstream of the Republican party is a testament of his importance to the intellectual argument and climate in American politics. No-one has done more to raise awareness of the ideals of limited government, individual liberty and free market economics that Dr Paul. Ideologies and economic schools that had lain dormant for decades have been thrust back into the mainstream intellectual discussion and arguably for the first time in as much as two centuries the ideals of liberty and freedom are in the ascendancy.

People the world over are rediscovering literature both academic and otherwise that had largely been forgotten. For example, “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand sold over 500,000 copies in 2009 (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=24817), more than double that of any year since it was first published in 1957. The ideas of the Austrian school are being rediscovered with the imminent failure of the Keynesian/Monetarist economic order, and if not accepted by mainstream economists, they at least are starting to feel the need to try and rebuke Austrian ideas rather than just ignore them. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve and central banks the world over are being put on the back foot and whether one agrees with the importance or correctness of Paul’s arguments one cannot deny that his effect on raising awareness among the public is profound.

Should Paul’s campaign end in glorious failure, the real significance of 2007-2012 will be in 10-20 years when his legions of young supporters are the teachers, academics, politicians, businessmen and parents of tomorrow. Just as Goldwater in 1964 could be said to have cleared the way for Reagan in 1980 Paul’s legacy may ultimately be that of a cultural and intellectual revolution opposed to short term political success.