Showing posts with label Jeff Jacoby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Jacoby. Show all posts

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe is of that rare breed, the conservative of gratitude

Here, celebrating National Review's 60th anniversary:

"IF GRATITUDE IS the quintessential conservative virtue, then Thanksgiving must be the quintessential conservative holiday. And with Thanksgiving 2015 comes an additional reason for gratefulness on the right: National Review has turned 60 and is marking the occasion with a grand anniversary issue. ... National Review’s 60th birthday is a milestone not just for a magazine, but for an ongoing commitment to the conviction that ideas matter, and that good writing can change lives. Its longtime readers have much to be thankful for. Of course, conservatives always do."

Anyone in this day and age who does not immediately define conservatism in the economic terms of libertarianism and ideology and who knows how to use "its" in a sentence is OK in my book. However bad National Review has become since its (!) ejection of the so-called nativists, it's (!) still nice to read someone who remembers the magazine which once steered by the conservative lodestar.

"Look over the whole creation, and you shall see, that the bond or cement, that holds together all the parts of this great and glorious fabrick, is gratitude."

-- Robert South (1634-1716)


Monday, January 2, 2012

'Judicial Supremacy is Eroding America's Democratic Values'

So says Jeff Jacoby for Boston.com, quite correctly even if he does agree with Newt Gingrich in saying so, here: "Judicial supremacy is eroding America’s democratic values. The balance of federal power needs to be restored." In noting that both the executive and legislative branches are servile to the court, however, the question is, Which branch needs to restore the balance? Well, surely not the executive. The branch which needs to re-assert itself is the legislative, and I can think of no better way, than for Americans to have the number of representatives intended by the constitution. Not 435, but 10,267 as of the last census.


Monday, August 2, 2010

A Rival Electoral College

As we pointed out previously, the National Popular Vote Campaign is an extra-constitutional end run around the constitution's designated amendment process which seeks to replace the constitutionally prescribed electoral college with a rival process in which states agree to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote nationally.

Is this not a form of sedition, indeed a revolt, against our long-accepted "federal democracy"? Jeff Jacoby is right to style the rival proposal a "national democracy," utterly foreign to our experience.

He also rightly points out for The Boston Globe in "Massachusetts for Palin?" that the new process would have nullified the votes of Massachusetts voters by awarding their electoral college votes to Republican winners of the popular vote nationally, like Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush, when they had voted instead for liberal Democrats, like George McGovern and Michael Dukakis.

Jacoby's assessment coheres with our own:

Massachusetts is the sixth state to approve this end run around the Constitution, following Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington. It is no coincidence that all six are Democratic strongholds. The movement is fueled by lingering Democratic resentment of George W. Bush, and of the Electoral College system that made him president in 2000, even though Al Gore drew more popular votes. It is a comical irony that if the compact ever goes into effect, its only practical impact in these states will be to occasionally award their presidential electors to the Republican nominees their voters reject.

But the other side of the coin is that in 2008, just two of the eleven largest states by population went Republican, and just three of the next largest ten. The situation for them in 2008 would have been just the reverse under the National Popular Vote scheme, and Republican majorities in Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri and Arizona would have seen their electoral votes cast for Obama, not McCain.

To quote a famous ex-president: "That doesn't make any sense."