Where are They?

I've been reading the Federalist Papers of late, and I haven't much progressed beyond the early Hamilton issues. In reading them, I have been struck by how easy Hamilton had it, in making arguments of how the Constitution would be of common benefit to the citizens of the Thirteen States. All he had to do was argue that unity and a strong central government would provide internal peace, prevent military exploitation at the hands of Eruopean powers (at one point, he declares that Europe, "by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion" over Africa, Asia, and America, and calls upon the new United States to "disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!" Heady words), and make our internal and external commerce strong. Order, strength, prosperity: those were the subjects that mattered.


Today I found an interesting article about an upcoming book by Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia, the archetypal "blue dog" Democrat. The article lists a number of oft-repeated problems that moderate-to-conservative have come to have with their party: too liberal, too value-neutral, too in-the-pocket of cultural special interest groups and out-of-step with "mainstream" America. I've heard such before, and you may have as well: people who say "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." My father was a lifelong Minnesota Democrat who voted for Dukakis in '84 and Mondale in '88 but became a Bush Republican after three years in ultra-libby Northern California, watching New Left lunacy take over the party of Harry Truman. By the same token, Miller has decided not to stand for re-election in 2004, despite what would be an easy run. He's done.


Again, such has been heard before. We could easily chalk this up to the red-county, blue-county divide. But I wonder. It's been a long time since I heard anyone in the Democratic Party suggest that the priorities of the Federal Government were Order, Strength, and Prosperity, and the rest could be left to itself. Clinton almost said it, when he claimed that "the era of big government was over," but he didn't expand upon it, or say why the era of big government was over or should be over. No one believed he meant it, anyway. Since then, the Democratic Party has been About a great many things. They've been about prescription drug benefits for seniors, and affirmative action for minorities, and driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and about making a great noise about education, and about abortion. But not much Order, Strength, Prosperity. In fact, they seem to suggest we should be apologetic about having the latter two.


Observe my evil twin's discourse on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He makes it very clear that the law should not have been passed, because it will not stand to judicial review. Ergo, someone who voted for this law either a) is ignorant of what our constitution says, or b) knew that the courts would undo the law and voted for it for "political points" (is there a tally card? Are there Triple Sound Bite Scores?). It does not occur to him that those who voted for the law find PBA abhorrent, even if Howard Dean says there's no such thing, and felt the laws of the land should reflect such.


This is also, on the face of it, unsurprising. Abortion is the third-rail of the Democratic Party. The ethical issues pertaining to it are not to be discussed, and any attempt to do so is an attempt to undo Roe vs. Wade. Whether Roe vs. Wade was a sound decision or an unnecessary overreach of judicial power is not to be discussed, and any attempt to do so reveals one for a bigoted 1950's back-alley sexist boogey monster thing. It is not an issue. It is not a question. It is not to be doubted or reconsidered. It Is Law, and only barbarians fail to bow before it. Say ten "I-Support-A-Woman's-Right-To-Choose" before you go to bed to recieve absolution.


As my rhetorical pendulum swings back, I am forced to ask: What does this have to do with Order, Strength, and Properity? Not a blessed thing, and this is my point. Morat is annoyed at politicians slapping themselves on the back for striking down a practice that they'll likely never come in contact with. That's a fair enough position, even if I disagree with him on the practice. But all this politicking and folderol on what is the most personal of matters has happened precisely because in 1973 the Supreme Court declared this most personal of matters to be enscribed in the national law. The uterus is now everbody's business, and will be dealt with in the vain, rabble-rousing manner that the rest of public business is conducted in.


Hamilton did not restrict the aims of the national government to Order, Strength, and Prosperity because he thought all other things unimportant. Rather, he and Madison and Washington and the rest of the Founders thought all other things too important to be left to the political process. This is the reason our political wills are confounded by legistlature, presidency, and courts. The Founders knew that lust for power was a human failing, not a structural malady, and so set the pieces in play against one another. Government, to them, was a necessary tedium because it could protect Order, Strength, and Prosperity. Washington the man would never have wanted Washington the city to be talking about the goings-on in a woman's womb.


We fell from this path from a variety of motivations, and when I stoke the fires of my anti-Confederacy rancor I will discuss those motivations in full. For the moment, the issue-happy Democrats and the pork-happy Republicans should start considering what the real purpose of our government is. Their failure to do so will lead to many more Zell Millers walking away from party and process, and the best will be mute, and the worst will be full of passionate intensity.


My evil twin is right. Upholding the Constitution is everyone's job, and making the hard choices is what we send men and women to Washington to do. He and I would disagree about what hard choices should be made, of course. But that is what makes the choices hard.