Category: Conservatism

"John Yoo works at one of the most prestigious think-tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute. He is absolutely sincere in believing that the executive branch can over-ride any domestic law, any international treaty and any moral boundary if necessary to protect national security. In a war on terror that stretches decades into the future, the new conservatism allows for a president with no checks at all on his own power as commander-in-chief. What might have once been a theoretical debate became a pressing reality. And within weeks of this new legal doctrine being expressed, military detainees under the control of American forces were being tortured – consciously, with pre-meditation, with legal cover provided. America went from being a constitutional republic, under the law, to an imperium of one man, answerable only to an election every four years, empowered to break any law and violate any moral law if he believes it is necessary for national security. If conservatism had begun as a political philosophy designed to check power, to ensure individual liberty, to protect individuals from lawless government authority, it ended in a dark room, with a defenseless detainee strapped to a board, terrified beyond most of our imagining. " – The Conservative Soul, Chapter Four, now out in paperback.

(Photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty.)

Conservative sanity, compared with fundamentalist panic:

Well, if you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It’s very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states — I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

Giuliani’s position – that there should be a federal amendment not if DOMA falls but if more states decide to adopt marriage equality – is befuddling. If you allow one state to try the reform, why is there a numerical limit on how many you’re going to allow? Does it matter if a state decides to do it by legislative action rather than by the courts? And what if it’s a combination, as in Massachusetts, where the legislature and governor have now upheld the reform initially dictated by the court? Is federalism okay until a critical mass of states moves in one direction? Or is Rudy making this up as he goes along?