The Jeffersonians knew the unvarnished truth, that farmers and plantation owners were the smartest and most worthy people. The Federalists were equally certain that it was the businessmen and bankers who best understood the complexity of the modern state. Both viewed the common man with respect and regards, so long as he was mindful of the modesty of his station.
The Constitution was only the beginning of the American Revolution. It goes on, and we are it.
If it’s about freedom and not safety, then gun laws are still a failure since we are less free today than we were 20 years ago. By your rationale, if gun laws were a success, we should be at least as free as we were and in fact should actually have more freedom today not less.
I’ve read a book that made what seemed like a good argument - that Jefferson didn’t really know the farmers he had such admiration for. A lot of these farmers essentially saw themselves as small business owners whose business happened to be agriculture. They were as interested in making a profit as any business owner in town was. Jefferson was attributing sentimental qualities to them that weren’t really there.
I think it’s worth remembering that only two of the major founding fathers were self-made men: Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. Having living as part of the common people, they didn’t see the public as an abstract the way a lot of the other founding fathers did.
This is wrong in two ways: First, twenty years ago Congress was passing an assault weapons ban that has since expired and shows no sign of coming to life soon despite Obama’s efforts. Also in the past 20 years the SCOTUS affirmed the individual right to own guns in the Heller decision. So our gun rights are stronger today than twenty years ago.
Second, the fact that we have the right to own guns at all is a conservative policy success. Even if Obama passed a new AWB tomorrow it would still be only because of conservative efforts that we have private gun ownership. This is something that many Liberals oppose outright.
At the federal level, we’re as free as we were in 1993. Of the two federal gun laws passed since then, one has sunset, and the other was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Also, it was 1998 when the NICS instant-background-check system went online, which eliminated the five-day waiting period to buy a handgun.
At the state level, while some states have enacted stricter gun laws since 1993, others have liberalized: note the boom in shall-issue concealed carry, for instance, and the overturning of handgun bans after DC v. Heller.
Ninja’d!
So American mass murderers are the best-equipped mass murderers in the world! USA! USA! Woot!
All this shows is what happens when a minority who are obsessed with something sometimes can successfully throw tantrums and get their way.
If that’s all you’ve got you might as well just concede that you’ve got nothing.
True enough, I guess, though the deadliest mass shooting in history was carried out by a Norwegian.
Conventional wisdom before Reagan was that unemployment and inflation followed the Phillips curve. Friedman showed that inflation was a monetary phenomenon. Liberals advocated wage and price controls that led to the stagflation of the 1970s. Reagan believed Friedman, backed Volcker and ended inflation. Liberals predicted disaster and as I have pointed out Reaganomics ended high inflation without causing high unemployment and caused the US economy to grow faster than other developed economies during the same time frame. If that is not success than what could success possibly be?
Liberals thought that the roots cause of crime was poverty and oppression. LBJ declared a War on Poverty and poored money into welfare programs. Crime skyrocketed even as the economy was doing better than ever in the 1960s. It continued to grow until conservatives started winning state and local government control. Conservatives thought the root cause of crime was criminals and started policies of aggressive policing and longer prison sentences. Crime rates started dropping and have been falling for twenty years. That is a success. Criminals are not poor schlmazels, they are evil people robbing, assaulting, and killing their fellow citizens. Putting them somewhere where there is not access to victims has been the greatest policy success of any of our lifetimes.
Welfare reform was a great success in that it saved the government money without causing any increase in poverty. From 1993 to 2000 the percentage of low income single mothers with a job rose 30% and incomes for low income single mothers went up 25%. More jobs and more income mean success.
Unions are good for people in the unions until the companies they work for fold. Since governments can’t fold unions are great for government workers and bad for those who pay their salaries.
Neoliberalism is low taxes, low regulation, and free trade. After Bretton Woods growth rates started to stagnate for the developed world. Two countries the US and the IK responded with neo-liberal economic policies. Since then the US and the UK have had their economies grow faster than Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Argentina. The only developed countries that grew faster were Singapore and Hong Kong which were even more neoliberal. In South America Argentina used to be richer than Chile, Chile tried neoliberal reforms and now Chile is richer. In the 1990s Sweden tried neoliberal reforms and its economy started growing faster. South Korea went from a third world nation to a developed economy in one generation after trying neoliberal reforms. India and China started to grow after trying neoliberal reforms. Neoliberalism has been a great success.
ISTM the “success” of NAFTA is, even now, highly debatable (and depending on the definition of “success”).
“Success” defined as “getting your way” or “success” defined as “salubrious social effects”? On the latter score you fail.
So, the fact tht the Saudis abandoned the OPEC embargo wasn’t important here? The fact that Volcker tightened the money supply wasn’t important here?
The economics during an administration is usually caused by previous administrations. Or does Clinton get full credit for the economy of the 90’s?
They rebutted that. They’d made a mistake in the math, but after correcting the math, their results still hold. Sorry I don’t have a cite, but should be easy to google.
Huh? Carter appointed him, knowing he’d tighten money supply, which would make the economy worse in the short run. When asked about why he did that knowing it would harm is campaign, he said they thought they could overcome it, and it was necessary for the country.
What? Carter did something he thought would be good for the country but bad for his re-election chances? No wonder Republicans call him an idiot!
So says you.
The vast majority of Americans disagrees with you though, and will as long as you live.
Volcker has appointed in August 1979, inflation was at 11.82 annualized rate. It was never below that until February of 1981 after Reagan was elected. After that inflation fell and kept falling. Reagan backed Volcker during the recession of 81-82 that was caused by monetary tightening. Volcker without Reagan had inflation, Volcker with Reagan, no inflation.
Freakonimics acknowledged that the math mistake lessened the power of the correlation. A little bit of googling will show research that the cohort born right after legalized abortion was much more criminal than the cohort born right before. The Freakomics correlation was an interesting theory that has been debunked.
Really? Well, shit. ** BG**, you’ve heard the expression “Take one for the team”? I mean, if it were me, I’d be glad to, but its you, so…
Not all the public opinion in the world can turn America’s gun-related death rate into a salubrious social effect.
No, Volcker without oil embargo, no inflation. Reagan was irrelevant. The economy would have rebounded the same if Carter had been re-elected. (I voted for Reagan, btw. I don’t regret it, either.)
We need to keep in mind that imported petroleum represents a real and external cost to a national economy. If its price goes up, the price of everything else goes up, because we use it not only to transport people, but to produce and transport goods. That is a form of inflation monetary policy cannot fix.