Building On The Secular Case For Traditional Marriage

Marriage SC Building on the Secular Case for Traditional Marriage

Is there a strong secular case to be made for the state’s exclusive recognition of traditional marriage? If so, any arguments for a deviation from this accepted, well-established standard should be equally as compelling.

Please consider this brief introductory summary in support of traditional marriage. The case made is purely a secular one. [Note: Featured quotes are that of Iowa Congressman Steve King, whose sentiments were recently featured in National Review Online].

First, there was never a need to officially or explicitly define marriage as an exclusive institution between man and woman. It was understood. As it stands, “To marry, two people must prove they are of opposite sex, not related, of age, and not married to anyone else.”

It is vital that we fully understand the historical precedent behind government’s recognition of such a uniquely designed and specifically defined category/status/classification (i.e. marital). Ultimately, there must be a widespread societal benefit, based on ‘credible and relevant empirical evidence,’ to justify governmental support and/or recognition (which is specifically what Chief Justice John Roberts has requested as the matter comes before the Supreme Court).

Demands for specials exceptions based on personal perceptions of entitlement should not be the primary driver of public policy. It’s these personal demands that have enabled the legalized slaughter better known as abortion. Where is the equality in such barbarism? If advocates of same sex marriages truly seek ‘equality,’ they may want to make the rights of defenseless infants part of their social/political platform and agendas. Regardless, the established reality remains: “There is no requirement for proof of enduring love, comingling of finances, or even intent to cohabitate. To ask the government to certify any of those things would offend all Americans who jealously guard their individual autonomy.”

There’s a reason why the government has never permitted relatives to marry, nor upheld the legality of polygamy. However, baseless propaganda efforts are tactically deeming those who remain exclusively committed to traditional marriage “phobes.” Their efforts are breeding an atmosphere by which even the most reasoned restrictions will not go unchallenged.

Before we enable calculated slander to shape public opinion and force the hand of government, we must carefully examine the health statistics, in particular the high incidences of STDs among the gay community (as verified by the CDC). We are living in a day where government is being forced to comply to the special interests of fringe minority groups at the expense of a time-honored, clinically proven gold standard.

Traditional marriage is the naturally and scientifically verifiable familial foundation (defined gender roles: woman/wife/mother-man/husband/father). On what grounds is THIS essential biological/foundational model overridden? Ultimately, ”government has a compelling interest in a legal record of procreation (this is further indicated by the doctrine of presumed paternity), and in creating a lasting environment where children will thrive. The fact that one must obtain a court order to divorce and the existence of tax-based incentives for marriage are other effects of the government’s interest in marriage.”

What is the justification for dismissing these realities? And why would polygamy and incestuous marriages remain exempt under this new model?

These are questions that must be definitively answered before this is taken any further.

Marriage cannot be redefined without recklessly dismissing the essential natural realities that have shaped our culture for centuries. Sound decision-makers must apply reasoned analysis to reaffirm that “Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched.” Just as important is the clarity achieved with the realization that “Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform…”

A stable and successful nuclear family dynamic has always been the central barometer indicative of a thriving America. That dynamic is in danger of being methodically and irresponsibly dismantled.

But lets not stop here. We need to follow the demands for same sex marriage to its ‘illogical’ conclusion.

It seems we are headed down a disturbing path in which ‘equal’ = ‘same’. It’s as if we are being pressured to relinquish any adherence to or acceptance of defined gender roles altogether. Gender distinctions are becoming obsolete as the roles become more and more interchangeable.

We are beginning to be confronted with a variety of unforseen and pecuiliar scenarios. Calls for equality are coming from multitple directions and threaten to shake our foundations. Actually, our foundations are being tested to see if they are sound as the opposition seeks cracks or weaknesses they can exploit.

We are swiftly entering a realm where the question will be asked: Should there be any limits or restrictions in any area of life based on gender? As the quest for full equality advances, will we be forced to dismiss the idea of gender roles altogether? And if a genderless society becomes the ‘new normal,’ will all boundaries and distinctions be removed? Will gender-based expectations become a mere reminder of a ‘repressive’ social standard held in former days?

As gender-based barriers and restrictions evaporate, we will be ‘free’ to raise our sons to play with dolls and wear dresses, while a man who perceives himself a female will be able to freely take part in all aspects of female-oriented activities – and vice versa.

In a ‘genderless’ society, the marriage institution must remain open and available to all forms of alternative arrangement. Once a nontraditional precedent is set, we may no longer logically place any restrictions on a marriage arrangement, since to do so would be discrimination. No longer will there be a reasonable way for a line to be drawn.

The recognition of same sex marriage ultimately sets a precedent in which gender roles and human desires are relative and accessible, based on a form of equality that removes naturally defining qualifications as needed. A greater ‘good’ is being promoted in the name of ‘sameness’ via state-sanctioned opportunities that neutralize defining characteristics for the sake of fairness.

Are we sure we want to go down this road?

* I dedicate ‘Building on the Secular Case’ to Mr. Bill O’Reilly, on behalf of “Bible Thumpers” everywhere.

Photo credit: loungerie (Creative Commons)

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

Media bias1 Mainstream Media Not Mainstream

I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)

A persistent (make that constant) theme I have extolled in both writing and speaking is that as Conservatives we should not fall prey to the ingrained habit of referring to the all-but-obsolete establishment media as “the mainstream” or “MSM.” Could anything be further from the truth? Stop and think about it for a minute….

As I like to tell audiences, “You’ll never see [David Gregory or Katie Couric, et al.] at a Denny’s!” It isn’t going to happen!

Back during the Roger Staubach Era, the Dallas Cowboys were affectionately referred to as “America’s Team.” As one might imagine, such a moniker would be considered the gold standard in the world of marketing or PR.

Imagine that you are starting a new grocery store chain, and through a stroke of luck you become known as “America’s Grocer.” Could it get any better than that?

Imagine, on the other hand, that you are one of the “Big Three” television and news networks – NBC, ABC, or CBS. Imagine also that over the past 50 years your viewership has plummeted from a virtual collective dominance of 100% to, say, 25% of the “news”- viewing public.

That would still represent one out of four American adults watching, but put in perspective, three out of four “news”-watchers would have rejected your collective “news” coverage. Not very good!

While that was merely a hypothetical construction on my part, here are some actual numbers for “Evening News Ratings,” obtained at MediaBistro.com:

NBC – 9,640,000 (Total Viewers)
ABC – 8,628,000 ( ” ” )
CBS – 7,482,000 ( ” ” )

Those numbers combined make 25,750,000 out of the current U.S. Population of 315,497,649. The annual population increase is estimated elsewhere (by extension) to be .76%. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of adults 18 or over to be 234,564,000 in 2010, which would be roughly 240,000,000 today, in 2013.

Thus the “Big Three” viewers among the total U.S. adult population (over 18) would be approximately 10.7%…far less than my “guesstimate” of 25%.

One site I came across seemed to indicate that some 74% of adults watch at least some news program weekly. According to this site, “CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).”

These figures – for those who watch news or “political/public affairs” programs, as opposed to strictly the “Nightly [Network] News” – show an aggregate of 24%of Adults watching the Big Three.

Getting back to the Nightly Network News (America’s staple before Cable and the Internet)…it would appear that my hypothesis was spot on among viewers ages 25-54, whose numbers looked like this:

NBC – 2,643,000
ABC – 2,328,000
CBS – 2,141,000

For a combined total of: 7,112,000

Removing those 18-24 (31,377,456) and those 55 and over (78,516,273), from the total number of those 18 and over (140,000,000), we end up with 30,106,271. Of that number, the 7,112,000 nightly network “news” viewers ages 18-24 make up some 23.6%.

I’m not sure, frankly, why MediaBistro.com chose to include a breakout for that particular statistical bracket – surely those over 54 are still keenly interested in what is going on in their country, even if many of those 18-24 are not – but in either case, the percentage of those watching network news range between an estimated minimum of 10.7% and a maximum of 23.6%.

Enough of statistics already, but I felt the need to support my thesis with more than just my opinion. It would be easy to dismiss my argument (that the Establishment Media is anything but the “mainstream,” and should not be thoughtlessly granted cult-like status by calling it that) as or as merely semantical or “academic.”

To do so, however, would represent a colossal failure to recognize the power of labels, or, in a broader sense, the power of language, or that of thought itself (the subject of my first book series, entitled The Secret of Life – Xlibris, 2008).

For those not versed in the science of the mind, the human subconscious (in contrast with the conscious mind) takes things we say and hear quite literally, as fact, as it were…especially when these “facts” are heard and parroted incessantly, by virtually everyone in the culture, on “both sides of the aisle” – including ourselves!).

Those of us who are parents may be keenly aware of the dramatic power – for better or for worse – of labels. While each of my daughters rightly considers herself to be her dad’s “favorite,” I have nicknames for each of them, as well as for our sons. For the most part these nicknames are more on the “cute” side – some having been derived from the inability of younger siblings to pronounce their older siblings’ names, for example – but one of them simply evolved from my repeatedly calling her “special.”

One day at the grocery store or doctor’s office – I wasn’t there, but received the report from my wife later on – an older woman complimented this particular daughter on her big, beautiful eyes, and asked, “What’s your name, little girl?” To which she replied, with the utmost in child-like sincerity and belief – “Special.” And from that day to this she has officially been known as “Special”…and it seems to have had a profound effect upon her life! (I am proud of each of my children, but I believe the success of this particular one has been directly attributable to the self-affirming “label” she has carried throughout her life.)

I will end my obvious point by reminding each of us that the Obsolete Establishment Media (or OEM) is just that. No, it isn’t 100% obsolete, but when less than 1 in 9, or 1 in 4 adults continue to “tune in” (perhaps tune out reality would be more accurate), it can hardly be called the “mainstream media” or “MSM.” Think of it: either 3 out of 4, or nearly 9 out of 10 “adults” are no longer watching – down from 10 out of 10 (of those who were watching anything in the way of “news”) some 20-30 years ago!

Let me underscore that in another way: 75-90% no longer watch the so-called (absurdly-called) “mainstream” media! So enough of the madness! (Those on the Left, of course, completely accept that they are the “mainstream” – even though polls clearly indicate that self-identifying “Conservatives” outnumber “Liberals” by 2 to 1 – 41% to 21% in 2011.)

Think about that: twice as many Conservatives as Liberals…and yet we refer to those extolling the views of the latter (a mere fifth of the adult population) as the “mainstream.” This is a coup of which both Edward Bernays , the “Father of Propaganda,” and his Nazi adherent Joseph Goebbels would have been extremely proud!

To be continued….

 

Tom Ballantyne is the author most recently of Uncommon Sense…Apparently! A Call To Arms, and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – both available at Amazon.com and at his website: www.UncommonSenseNow.com.

Why Republicans Lose

Republican Elephant 2 SC Why Republicans Lose

Newt Gingrich fired a cigar-shaped, self-propelled underwater projectile yesterday into the side of the USS Rove and his destroyer escorts.

Os Guinness’ insight is most helpful in the examination — and battle — for the soul of the Republican Party:

Put another way, if there are no universals or absolutes, then ‘normality’ is also relative and must be dictated by an arbitrary absolute created either by the stat or by the consensus of the population. This is true whether ‘normality’ refers to morality or sanity, badness or madness. One man’s ‘normality’ can become an implied or explicit judgment of another man’s ‘abnormality,’ whether mental or moral. Or, the assertion of one man’s ‘abnormality’ may be an assertion of freedom from the other man’s ‘normality.’ A man’s refusal to admit any degree of ‘abnormality’ in himself leads to the process of rationalization required to maintain his ‘normality’ at the expense of the other man’s ‘normality.’ This process tends to rationalize violence; for men justify their mistreatment of others by considering them as “abnormal” simply because others differ from them.

Last cycle, the GOP chieftains’ and lieutenants’ political killing of Todd Akin — yet funding $1M to liberal, homosexual activist candidate Richard Tisei — brings clarity to the philosophy of the Permanent Republican Majority, Karl Rove’s brainchild.

The amoral Permanent Republican Majority’s attempt to become the “normality” of the Republican Party — the concept of transmission being political triangulation which takes the place of principled conservative beliefs based upon conviction and moral absolutes — is troubling.

Christians participating in picking up a Republican House or Senate seat — ignoring one’s behavior, ethics, or integrity — is idolatry and worship of a false god and ultimately will collapse due to faulty construction to the foundation.

The Permanent Republican Majority’s “normality” (i.e. picking up Republican seats regardless of Biblical virtue, righteousness, or standard of decency) is the opposite of the ideology espoused by the wisest man — politically — who ever lived: “Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

The glory of a nation lies in its righteousness, not in its wealth or military might. If the key to maintaining sustainable freedom is righteousness — opposite of the credo and philosophy of the Permanent Republican Majority — Republicans and America are in a world of hurt.

Worse, Christian values — generally housed within the Republican Party — are being painted as “abnormal” in the attempt by the honchos of the Republican establishment to legitimize homosexual marriage within the Grand Old Party.

The USS Rove and its destroyer escorts’ postulation that their empty political philosophy is the gold standard for “being electable” — when in truth it’s a lust for power and money — challenges the notion that Biblical values, virtue, and Christian “normality” permit a democratic people to remain free.

Freedom always faces a fundamental moral challenge; virtue is a key component of freedom. Taking the Permanent Republican Majority’s route in the end will destroy the Republican Party initially, then America’s freedom.

Someone’s values are going to reign supreme in America. In God’s economy — from a Biblical perspective — the foundation that allows sustainable freedom and guards the nation are justice and righteousness.

Proverbs 20:28: “Mercy and truth preserve the king; and he upholdeth his throne by mercy.”

Michael V. Fox: “God’s loyalty and fidelity guard the king, but other proverbs about the foundation and security of the throne (nation) make it dependent on the king’s (nation’s) virtues.”

Having lost our Judeo Christian heritage (and it’s by-product of a Christian culture), secular America cannot absorb the virtues and values that Wisdom brings — ‘knowledge’, ‘insight’, ‘prudence’, ‘cunning’, ‘discretion’, ‘learning’, ‘guidance’, ‘counsel’, ‘understanding’, ‘competence’, ‘resourcefulness’, ‘heroic strength’ — it sounds like Pig Latin.

Dr. Bruce K. Waltke: “These virtues equip one to rule and to give him gravitas (dignity) associated with wealth.”

The establishment of a just and righteous society is primarily the responsibility of America’s pastors and pews; alas, deceived by the lie of the ‘separation of church and state’, the salt has lost its savor in this civil society.

Profiteering off of this empty, amoral political philosophy — which calls evil good and good evil — when carried to its logical conclusion results in the collapse of the Republican Party…ultimately.

David Lane
American Renewal Project

 

Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)

Coming To Lame Duck Tomorrow: Controversial UN Disabilities Treaty

United Nations flag SC Coming to Lame Duck Tomorrow: Controversial UN Disabilities Treaty

Even though Congress is running out of time to push through a negotiated solution to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, the Senate has a UN treaty on the schedule for a ratification vote Tuesday.

And opponents say it could leave society’s most vulnerable under the thumb of an international agreement that’s not as innocuous as it sounds.

“You’d think this issue can transcend politics. The Disabilities Convention is a non-discrimination treaty that will extend essential protections for millions of disabled Americans when they leave our shores,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) wrote in the Huffington Post today. “…Approving the treaty now won’t require any changes whatsoever to American law — none, zero, zip. It simply requires other countries to improve their own record on disability rights — in effect taking our gold standard here at home and exporting it to countries that have never heard of disability rights or have never changed their laws to accommodate people with disabilities.”

President Obama signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, sending it to the Senate for ratification where it has remained since. Currently 125 countries plus the European Union are parties to the convention.

“The UNCRPD should be of great concern for conservatives,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told PJM today. ”From American sovereignty, to parental rights, to the lives of the unborn, it could lead to limiting our individual freedoms and expanding the role of government in our lives.”

 Read More at pjmedia.com . By Bridget Johnson.

Related posts:

  1. Lame Duck Produces A Lame Economy by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown The lame duck Congress…
  2. Liberals Unleash Lame Duck Power Grab I’m sure it wasn’t their intention, but big-spending Democrats proved…

The Two Real Parties: The Hamiltonians And The Jeffersonians

ahamilton 65 The Two Real Parties: The Hamiltonians And The Jeffersonians

The two opposing political philosophies being debated in 2012 can be traced back to George Washington’s presidency.  Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury and a Federalist,  offered an economic plan that created a centralized bank (First Bank of the United States), imposed trade tariffs and exise taxes, and had the federal government assume all of the states’ debt. He justified government expansion by referring to implied powers implicit in the Constitution. Former Federalist Thomas Jefferson opposed the expansion of government,  supported states rights, and followed a more explicit interpretation of the Constitution with strict limitations on federal government. Eventually, Jefferson’s side formed a party referred to by historians and people of the time as Republicans, but known today as Democratic-Republicans. Hamilton and Jefferson are the patrons of the two opposing American political philosophies of big government vs. small government.

President Washington didn’t openly join either side, but he supported Hamilton’s policies as his Treasurer. Both the House and Senate were pro-administration (Federalist) throughout Washington’s presidency and remained Federalist through John Adam’s (also a Federalist) presidency. During this period, there was a financial crisis in 1792 when Hamilton bailed out the Bank of New York, the bank he started, through providing securities that brought the price of securities down by 24%. There was also a land speculation bubble that burst in 1796.

From 1800 to 1825, the Democratic-Republicans dominated Congress. The charter of the First Bank of The United States expired in 1811 and wasn’t renewed. After the Nepoleanic wars ended, there was an ”Era of Good Feelings”, where there was a general feeling of Unity between all politicians as the Federalist party faded into history. There was basically a diluted, moderate Democratic-Republican party. The Second Bank of  The United States was chartered in 1817 as a reaction to the difficulties in financing the War of 1812. After the panic of 1819, however, politicians split into Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions again over the existence of a centralized bank.

The Democrats emerged as the Jeffersonian Party; and the National Republicans, who later became Whigs, favored Hamiltonian policy. The Jeffersonian Democrats dominated the presidency and both houses until 1860.  After the charter for the Second Bank of The United States was allowed to expire by Jackson’s administration in 1837, there was a contraction and a five-year long depression. Despite this economic downturn (and a brief surge in Whig popularity),  there was no central bank again until 1913.  There was another panic that spread from Great Britain’s central bank in 1857, but the economy quickly recovered after President Buchanan (Jeffersonian Democrat)  lowered tariffs and withdrew government usage of bank notes. The panic leveled out and was over by 1859.

In 1854, a new Republican Party formed from the remnants of the Whigs (as did other abolitionist third parties to fight slavery.) The Republicans dominated Congress and the presidency until 1885. After the war, they became  the representatives of Hamilton’s philosophies.  In order to fund the Civil War, the US government left the gold standard and created greenbacks, or legal tender fiat currency that was not readily redeemable in gold. As a result of the war,  the transition back to the gold standard, and Republican protectionist tariffs, the growth of the American industrial revolution was slowed in what is known as the long depression between 1873 and 1896.

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both took Hamiltonian policy to a new level in the early 1900s. Much like our last two presidents, their party affiliation was nominal.  They introduced progressivism and government activism throughout their presidency, pushing antitrust laws and new departments like the ICC, as well as reinstating a central bank and introducing the income tax. Party members from both sides opposed certain aspects of the activism and supported others. Pure Jeffersonian policies were abandoned. There was a panic in 1907 that was in recovery by 1908 during Roosevelt’s presidency. During Wilson’s presidency, we entered WWI and imposed a  top income tax rate of  73%, when just seven years before there was no income tax at all. This led to a crash in 1920.

After the heavy government expansion of the progressive era and the crash that resulted, there was a backlash and a redefining of the parties once again. After Wilson’s administration, politicians who favored Hamiltonian policy aligned themselves with the Democrats, while Jeffersonian policies were revived by the Republicans. The next two presidents, Harding and Coolidge, were Jeffersonian Republicans backed by Republican Congresses throughout their terms. They cut taxes and reduced government. This policy led to the roaring twenties. The roaring twenties ended with a crash in 1929.

A month after the stock market crash, the market bottomed out and began to make a recovery. After unemployment went from 9% in November of 1929 to 6% in June of 1930, without any government interference, Hoover decided to compromise with Hamiltonian principle and urge wage controls and protectionist tariffs. The Republican Congress went along. The market quickly turned south again; and the more Hoover did to help, the worse it got.

After Hoover and the Republicans’ failures with the recovery, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and the Presidency with Franklin Roosevelt.  Roosevelt began what he called modern liberalism based on the new Keynesian economic model. Modern liberalism was and is Hamiltonian progressivism on steroids. Massive government regulation, price controls, and protective trade tariffs led to a depression that only ended after those policies were scrapped for the WWII war effort over ten years later.

After the Great Depression and World War II, Americans in general had had enough of big government. There was no proper plan to handle the switch to a peacetime economy. The removal of some price controls  resulted in inflation and some of the biggest public sector union strikes in history, while remaining agricultural price controls led to farmers refusing to sell grain in 1945 and 1946. The chaos resulted in Congress being lost to the Republicans in 1946 for the first time since 1930.  Anti-union legislation as well as tax cuts were passed by this Congress by overriding Truman’s vetoes.  Truman was in trouble in the 1948 election, so he convinced fellow Democrats at the convention to support more civil rights policies to muster support for Hamiltonian policy, despite Southern Democrat objections. He won the Presidency, and the Democrats won back Congressional control. During Truman’s second term, he began integration in the military and made discrimination against public service employees illegal. Beyond that, Truman’s second term was rife with corruption and cronyism in the IRB (the predecessor to the IRS) and court appointees, Union Strikes, and unrest from continued price controls, as well as a war in Korea that was not declared by Congress.  Truman lost the nomination to run again in 1952. There was a recession in 1949, shortly after Truman’s Fair Deal was enacted and the Federal Reserve tightened the money supply. After The Korean War, more inflation was expected, so the Federal Reserve implemented a more restrictive monetary policy than necessary, leading to a recession in 1953.

Republican Dwight Eisenhower won the presidency, and the Republicans won the majority in both houses of Congress in 1952.  Eisenhower returned to a financially responsible, progressive Hamiltonian Republican policy and blamed the Old Guard of the Republican party for being too inflexible. He lost both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 1954. Democrats maintained their majority in both houses until 1980. Although he removed wage and price controls and cut back remaining New Deal legislation, ended the Korean War, and balanced the budget,  he also expanded Social Security and proposed the Interstate Highway System.  It was the Eisenhower administration that effectively began the marginalization of Jeffersonian Republicanism for responsible Hamiltonianism. There were two short, minor recessions in 1958 and 1960 that resulted from the Federal Reserve’s attempts to avoid economic difficulties.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress throughout both of their presidencies. Kennedy returned to Keynsianism, loosening monetary policy and increasing government spending to create our first non-war, non-recession deficit. Kennedy’s policies resulted in the fastest growth in American history up until that point.  Johnson continued and expanded Kennedy’s policies by creating The Great Society. The Great Society was a dramatic expansion of government control. Everything from Medicare and Medicaid to current education policy to arts endowments, welfare, urban renewal, and even heavy environmental  policies was all born during Johnson’s administration. The bubble created by Keynsian policies led to an economic slump that started in 1966 and led to the worst inflation in a century. johnson didn’t seek re-election.

Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, but both Houses of Congress remained Democrat throughout his administration. Nixon was a Hamiltonian Republican who created a “new Federalism”. He reduced the power of states, lifted the gold standard, and put wage and price controls in place. His policies were a temporary fix, and high inflation returned with a vengeance accompanied by rising unemployment at the end of his presidency.

Gerald Ford assumed the presidency in 1974 after Nixon resigned. He was another Hamiltonian Republican who saw a short presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Ford continued the tradition of government spending, which increased the deficit and had no discernible effect on inflation or unemployment.

Jimmy Carter was a Hamiltonian Democrat elected in 1976.  Carter also had a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. He tried following Ford’s policies, then reversing them, leading to a new economic phenomenon called stagflation (or high inflation and high unemployment at the same time resulting from the erratic policies.) The economy progressively got worse, leading to a  shift from Democrat to Republican control in the Senate and the Presidency, for the first time since 1952, in 1980.

The first Jeffersonian Republican President since Calvin Coolidge was elected in 1980. Ronald Reagan enjoyed the only three Republican majority houses of Congress elected between 1954 and 1994.  All three were Senates. He cut funding of government programs and lowered taxes. The freeing up of the economy led to a deep recession that lasted until 1982, followed by a robust recovery that didn’t see another recession until 1990, even with greatly increased defense spending  to push the Soviet Union to bankruptcy.

George Bush Sr. was a Hamiltonian Republican elected in 1988. He gave into the demands of the Democrat majority in Congress during his presidency; this led to a prolonged recession and made Bush a one term President.

In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton was elected with a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. Clinton claimed to be a Centrist who followed responsible Hamiltonian policy over the Keynesian policies of the FDR Democrats. He went too far with a push for more strict gun control laws and universal healthcare, however, and lost The House of Representatives for the first time in forty years and the Senate for the fist time in eight. Congress remained Republican until 2006. Huge advancements in technology and deregulation  led to Clinton being President during the biggest technological boom in history. It was blown up into a bubble through The Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low, leading to over-investment. The bubble burst during his last year as president in 2000 after the Federal Reserve brought interest rates back up.

George W. Bush became President in 2000. He was a Hamiltonian Republican with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for the first 3/4 of his term. Together, they increased  spending  more than any administration since Lyndon Johnson. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to counter the recession of 2000 while legislation was passed for the government to insure risky mortgages to help more people own homes. This rebirth of Keynesianism led to a housing bubble that burst in 2007. The recession lasted until the end of Bush’s presidency, despite  bailouts in 2008.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008, along with a Democrat majority in both houses. Barack Obama is a Hamiltonian Democrat who, along with his Democrat Congress, also followed the Keynesian policies of Bush. The economy continued to get worse until 2010. In 2010, The House of Representatives as well as many state legislatures were taken over by a new Jeffersonian Republican movement referred to as the Tea Party. (Of course, we all know what happened in the couple of years that followed.)

I hope you see how important it is to return to the small government Jeffersonian policies that have proven to have more beneficial effects on the economy and the quality of life for all Americans.

Related posts:

  1. Today’s Real Election Fundamental… In the last Rasmussen survey of Party identification before the…
  2. Both Parties Move To The Left On Immigration by Joe Guzzardi Republicans, traditionally oriented toward enforcing federal immigration…