Bill Kristol Doesn’t Believe In Doing The Right Thing

4:01 pm EST February 2nd, 2010 | News | 14 Comments

I get the sense that Kristol would have laid out a defense of slavery invoking the clear cost-benefit of free labor over paid.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

14 Responses to “Bill Kristol Doesn’t Believe In Doing The Right Thing”

  1. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    I thought Kristol and his fellow travelers were strict Constitutional originalists.

    I musta slept through history class the day they covered the cost-benefit analysis on “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

  2. justadood says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    True…”doing the right thing” isn’t always profitable….at least, not at first.

    Dividends usually pay off down the road, though, in a stronger, smarter, more vibrant nation.

    I think Kristol might have this in mind, in a twisted way—it’s all in how you define ‘our’…..as you read the Preamble

  3. SaveFarris says:
    February 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare

    Two different words, two different meanings. Hey, maybe the Founders meant 2 different things!!!

    Too “nuanced”?

  4. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 2, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Too “nuanced”?

    Not nearly. Too far from the point? Definitely.

  5. Connie says:
    February 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    I really do believe that if they could they would reinstate slavery. They fight against implementing a living wage, much less a decent salary. They believe that available health care for all citizens is a want and not a need and fight against it tooth and nail. They don’t believe in unions that would advocate for worker’s rights, safety and economically. And, he is leading the debate regarding those issues. He’s had these elitist, sexist, racist views for a long time. How do these men look in the mirror to shave? The song from the musical HAIR just keeps popping into my mind…”How can people be so heartless, how can people be so cruel, easy to be hard; easy to be cold.”

  6. fafaroo says:
    February 2, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Two different words, two different meanings. Hey, maybe the Founders meant 2 different things!!!

    Not this again. Hey Save, here’s a fun trivia question for you: Where else in the Constitution do the phrases “common defence” and general Welfare” appear and what verb is used in relation to both?

    Oh fuck it. Here’s the answer:

    Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1

    Yet another Conservative arguing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution who hasn’t actually read it.

  7. Sean D. Martin says:
    February 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Here is contemporary liberalism in a nutshell: No need to consider costs as well as benefits.

    You mean, like when making tax cuts and starting wars? Damn the liberal Bush Administration for doing those.

  8. Sean D. Martin says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Does anyone understand at all what Farris’s point is supposed to be?

  9. Lonya says:
    February 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Presumably it is a textual analysis of the preamble. The argument, as I understand it is that the ‘,’ that separates “provide for the common defence” [and] “promote the general welfare” is outcome determinative as a rebuttal to the arguement that the Congress’ spending power is virtually unlimited.

    If one takes the word provide as implying a spending power and promote as not implying a spending power . . . .and so on and so forth.

    There’s been plenty of discussion about this before her iirc and won’t bore anyone further except to note the conjunctive ‘and’ in Art. I Sec 8.

  10. fafaroo says:
    February 2, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Ditto Lonya.

    Only to add that this is a classically brainless argument made by conservatives who want to make a Constitutonal case against welfare while valorizing other kinds of massive government expenditures, specifically defense spending.

    It’s brainless because the whole argument, as you can see from Save’s brilliant execution above, is predicated on the the appartently sharp and crucial distinction between “provide” and “promote” — oh and also hoping no one reads past the preamble to the section that specifically identifies Congresses powers where “provide” is used in relation to both the common defense and the general welfare.

    The more intelligent argument and more complicated constitutional argument turns on the definition of “general welfare” not “provide” and “promote.”

    But, of course, to make that kind of argument you have to be able to read and understand stuff that can’t be fit on to a bumper sticker:

    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html

  11. Lonya says:
    February 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Yep. The article correctly pointed out the difference of opinion between Madison and Hamilton, This pretty much moots the argument about the intent of the founders since there was a clear difference of interpretation. Add to that the fact that the anti-federalists were very much opposed to the privision because they feared that as written it granted Congress very broad power.

  12. gumby says:
    February 3, 2010 at 3:26 am

    “I really do believe that if they could they would reinstate slavery. ”

    Oh my god! This is so not true!

    There Dennis.. Feel better?

  13. Dennis says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Lol, gumby. Glad to see at least a modicum of sanity among this crowd.

  14. Sean D. Martin says:
    February 3, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Clear and lucid. Thankee both.