Comments on: Big-Government Gerson

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:23:21 +0000

I think that Hamilton is in a way the straw man in the picture. When he pushed for a centralized government, the thirteen states were together no more than the size of England. The Louisiana Purchase, Texas, California and the Border States, Alaska did not exist in Hamilton’s country. If the country had stayed small, would the same mess we have today occurred? I don’t know, England is still the same size they were then and look at the mess they’re in, so it’s possible. I agree that Jefferson’s concepts were better than Hamilton’s but the blame for the country’s sorry mess really rests on the shoulders of the men and women politicians that followed him. They- John Q. Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt (Both), Wilson, and those still alive today; that like Gerson, willingly twist freedom into license need to face their own blame and responsibility.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:40:30 +0000

Hamilton was indeed an interesting figure, but he couldn’t shoot a pistol worth a darn. Perhaps Aaron Burr did the country a service.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:37:32 +0000

The Republicans are infatuated with this “big tent” concept. It’s a manifestation of their lack of imagination and their hero worship of the Democrats. The Democrat faithful are a hodge podge of lunatic fringe groups such as blacks, homosexuals, and radical feminists. The Republicans think that by becoming a watered down version of the Democrats they will get the all elusive “moderate” vote. Well, they won’t but they are too dense to figure it out. They spend too much time in Washington and New York to show any vestiges of good judgement, much less read the voters in the flyover states. I hate to break it to them but their base is with those red state rubes, not the Cambridge and Georgetown elite. And, there are enough of those rubes to carry an election if the dolts in the Republican party can figure it out.

By: MYRON PAULI

MYRON PAULI — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:19:14 +0000

The only admirable quality of Gerson is that he is so entirely up front in his evil inclination – a sort of Republican Marxist. For every Goldwater or de Mint who indicates even a modicum of respect for limited government, there is an ocean of Gersons, Cheneys, and Roves seeking power over the “General Welfare”. Ilana’s “constitutionalism”, while correct, is tragically a long-lost irrelevance in the Age of Gerson. Most who took up arms in the Revolutionary days wouldn’t recognize the Empire that America degenerated into.

Sadly, the 14th is vaguely written. I have no problem with the EQUAL PROTECTION concept: e.g. Ohio cannot exclude Hindus from serving on juries. BUT the federal judiciary should restrain themselves from imposing whatever fads (good or bad) strike their fancy. In other words – each state would be (per Brandeis) a “laboratory for democracy” – maintaining SOVEREIGNTY over the death penalty, minimum wages, abortion restrictions, gun restrictions, pornography laws, marriage, alien benefits… without judges to impose “modern consensus” (often European fads) on the states. However, many libertarians (of the Reason Magazine variety) love using the 14th Amendment to impose a Nationwide Libertarian Order on the ignorant yahoos at the state level.

By: Bob Harrison

Bob Harrison — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:02:52 +0000

Hamilton was an interesting figure in American history. I think that his vision for America was to emulate and OUTDO the British Empire.
I feel that if any of the founders were alive today, no one would be happier with our current state than Hamilton.