I haven’t watched the Democratic debate. I have zero interest in that lot. Their policy prescriptions exist on a continuum of socialism. While this is true of most Republicans, there is still something of an argument as to whether it ought to be so— an argument owed mostly to Ron Paul’s injection of laissez faire into the process.
Here are one or two salient points I’ve gleaned from the ABC– and Fox-conducted debates with the Republican contenders:
If you exclude Ron Paul (as Fox Noise did) and set-aside the war (I can’t), then Fred Thompson is the more authentically conservative candidate.
On immigration, Thompson has been the only front-runner to address the deleterious effects of mass illegal immigration on the social fabric of this country. Thompson is also the only contender to have ever uttered a word with respect to the American people’s interests rather than those of the illegal immigrants, whom McCain keep calling “God’s children.” Again: more than the rest, Thompson sounded as though he was vying to lead Americans, not Mexicans.
The white-noise makers of Fox took a page out of ABC’s broadcasting book, and allowed a freer-flowing exchange between the windbags. During this Fox free-for-all, it became abundantly clear that McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani essentially support amnesty; they just obfuscate by calling it something else.
McCain, especially, lies about the Z-Visa, and Huckabee continued to defend the rights of children of illegal immigrants to receive what American kids can’t. Other than Thompson, this lot is untrustworthy on stopping the ongoing illegal influx. Mitt Romney is somewhat incoherent, so I find it hard to make out his positions.
He and Giuliani are extremely repetitive, robotic, rehearsed and unbelievable in their plugs for themselves. I have to say again that Thompson spoke more naturally and organically. His mention of the constitutional scheme along the debate—the delimited and limited powers of the various branches of government, and my favorite, the 10th amendment—meant a lot to me.
It appears that an American president must have a healthcare plan—and a plan for almost everything else. Thus, I’m not clear what is Giuliani’s policy prescription for pacifying the people on this front, but he was best able to articulate free-market principles.
In expressing simple, but fundamental, concepts associated with government as opposed to private-run endeavors, Giuliani bested Paul on health care. (On why Paul didn’t do well, unfortunately, in a follow-up post.)
Later then.
Updated: as our reader points out below in the Comments Section, Thompson did appeal to utilitarian “principles” to justify government taking. If you believe a man owns what he produces, then you can never remove it from him without his permission.
Here is the Constitutional lesson I liked, sealed with the contemptible bit that ought to be bowdlerized (with soap and water):
MR. THOMPSON: “Everyone has kind of a wish list. I think it’s most important, though, that a president of the United States understand that our principles — our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States, understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our founding fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that.
They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said, ‘If the powers aren’t delineated in this document, they don’t exist.’ And then we got the 10th Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else. [All good up until here, where the bad begins.—IM] And then we grew from that principles, such as a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person that earned it unless the government can make a case that it can spend it better; you don’t spend money that you don’t have; and you certainly don’t spend your grandchildren’s money with debt that they’re not at the table when the decision has been made to spend it.”