Did the Midterms Matter?

A cynical (or realistic) take on the change in D.C. power.

Now that the dust has settled from Election Day, it's worth asking whether the midterms will have much impact on American governance, especially in the brief lull before the 2012 presidential season really gets going. There's a lot of stuff to plow through in the post-Thanksgiving lame-duck session and there's every reason to expect Democrats and Republicans to kick tough votes down the road as far as possible. After all, if these folks had any backbone, convictions, or leadership skills, there wouldn't be so much stuff to plow through.

The federal budget for the current fiscal year remains unresolved, as does the question of tax rates come January 1. Are they kidding us? The president's big commission on long-term debt reduction will be voting on recommendations this Wednesday, and Congress is supposed to weigh in on those suggestions before Christmas. Good luck with that. What's the phrase this suggests? Oh yeah: SNAFU, with an emphasis on the normal.

Still, it's easy to think we've witnessed something important. The Republicans picked up control of the House of Representatives and gained some 63 seats. They also gained six seats in the Senate, eight governor's mansions, and at least 19 state legislative chambers. The swing was described as "historic" (USA Today, US News), a Democratic "debacle" (Human Events), even a "shellacking" (President Obama). As a Washington Post headline somewhat wistfully put it, "No quibbling: Huge win for Republicans."

But it may well be a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or more accurately, meet the new boss, same as the old boss who was in charge just a few years ago and did such a terrible job that they were kicked out of power. Sadly, there's every reason to believe that this GOP wave will hit the beach with a big roar, and then roll back out with the tide, leaving very little changed at all.

One of the key issues in the midterms was out-of-control government spending. Indeed, the cri de guerre of the pivotal Tea Party movement is a straightforward plea to "Stop the Spending." There's little reason to expect the Republican majority in the House to push for much in the way of serious budget cuts. We know this because of the Pledge to America, the pre-election plan released to much ballyhoo by the incoming Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). The Pledge didn't talk about reforming budget-breaking entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and it specifically exempted defense spending from budget scrutiny. So even if the GOP gets its way, we're still headed to the poor house. As Mercatus Center economist and Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy titled a chart illustrating the plan's potential impact, "Pledge makes negligible difference."

If the Republicans - who had a noisy internal fight over whether to ban earmarks, for god's sake - are already weak in the knees when it comes to spending, we shouldn't expect them to chart a new course when it comes to foreign policy, especially regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama is already following George W. Bush's painfully slow withdrawal plan from Iraq and has doubled down in Afghanistan without clarifying U.S. goals and leaving lots of wiggle room when it comes to deadlines for leaving.

The only folks more hellbent on maintaining the military status quo than the president are the Republicans. Failed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has already lashed out at freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for his supposed "isolationism" and readiness to entertain cuts in defense spending. McCain and other hawks will get ideological support from courtiers such as The New York Times' David Brooks, who has pulled out of mothballs his '90s-era call for a "national greatness conservatism" in which military might plays a starring role, and AEI scholars such as Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly, who argued in the Washington Post that the GOP will become "a combination of Ebenezer Scrooge and George McGovern" if it cuts defense spending one farthing. That's inertia you can believe in.

[Article continues below video]

Will new-found GOP hegemony at the state level mean they'll lock down future control of Congress when redistricting starts next year? Republicans will get to draw boundaries for something like 170 congressional districts. The Democrats will get to pencil in just 70, but bipartisan or non-partisan committees will get to create 200, so any effect will be muted. Forgive those of us who remember 2004, when Republicans supposedly achieved a "permanent governing majority," or 2008, when Democrats pulled off the same feat, for yawning.

Social issues were a back-burner phenomenon this time around, but that didn't stop Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) from attempting to alienate any newcomers to the Republican tent by making the self-evidently false statement post-election to Fox News that "you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative." Whatever else you can say about the midterms, it seems clear that the nation didn't send 100-plus new faces to Washington as reinforcements in battles over gays in the military or abortion rights.

Some Republicans seem to get it. "We make a grave mistake if we believe that...these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party," said Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Election night. "What they are is...a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago."

Is it cynical or simply realistic to figure that Rubio and his freshman compadres have their work cut out for them in a party dominated by the likes of John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who manifestly failed to shrink government when the GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House? Boehner, who voted for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug plan, and TARP, laid his weak hand on the table before the election with his Pledge to America. McConnell had to be strong-armed into kinda-sorta saying earmarks were worth chucking. In a post-election speech at the Heritage Foundation, he trotted just about every guaranteed-applause line in the book without mentioning hard-core spending he'd actually cut from the budget. Yes, he vowed to "stop the liberal onslaught" and work to repeal or minimize the impact of ObamaCare. He tossed out the softball about "freezing" or "cutting" discretionary spending, without an example and without clarifying if defense, the single-biggest item on that side of the federal ledger, is open to trimming. And what about entitlements, especially Medicare, that are the real poison pill?

Will the likes of Rubio and the Pauls (father and son) be able to move the establishment toward small-government action when they actually take office? Here's hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it. Ronald Reagan famously said "trust, but verify" when it came to dealing with the Soviets. The contemporary GOP commands less respect from the electorate. It needs to show voters something, and fast.

The good news about the recent midterms? There's another election in just two years.

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Who aren't the only ones with a point of view.

    Everyone loves you, nobody cares
    An awful collection of enemies and friends
    Congratulations to you, and sad regrets
    I'm tired of the old shit, let the new shit begin

  • Rather||

    Good morning
    Off to play third base with the TSA but left a post fo ya
    .

  • Quote Thief||

    When I woke up this morning I was sober, but your blog still sucked.

  • Rather||

    No shit...confession is good for your soul but I didn't need to hear it-you are amazingly obvious

  • Quote Thief||

    Hey, if I click on your name, will it take me to your blog? That's really clever!

  • Rather||

    I'm sorry was that...funny?
    When I click on your name I get nothing but then your real use to hearing that from women.

  • Quote Thief||

    real use to hearing that

    Can't write a competent sentence but has a blog anyway. Yeah, that's just about right.

  • GMT II||

    That was a rather bad come back to your mistake. If you can't raise the bar, have a beer on me.

  • Quote Thief||

    inside joke jackass

    I'll have to remember that one. "Yes, sir, I deleted those critically important files, but it was an inside joke. Get it?"

  • the right does it too||

    Whenever I think of all the punditry regarding the GOP's "takeover," I keep hearing "Dumb All Over" by Frank Zappa playing in the background....

  • ||

    There will be no such thing as a "permanent governing majority" until the rat bastards learn how to govern, rather than just screw us.

  • Rather||

    They will just taking their turn screwing us. Why the hell would they learn?

  • Realist ||

    Yet you keep nominating and electing them.

  • DLM||

    Someone is going to win. That's the rule.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Who the fuck is this "you" you're mentioning here?

  • Realist ||

    That would be anyone who votes!

  • Pud||

    This is a good reason to keep pressuring our representatives through phone calls, letters and emails. Other than our votes and recommendations, armed revolt is the last choice (and not a good one).

  • ||

    "...armed revolt is the last choice (and not a good one)."

    Soon it maybe the only one if the Rat Bastards can't be reined in.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    unfortunately, if we go to blows with the government they are probably going to win and when it is done, it will be worse than it is now.

    They have all the very cool weapons and once they crush us on the Night of the Long Knives they will say: See! We were right. In the name of security we need to crack down. 1A and 2A abd 4A will be indefinitely suspended.......

  • ||

    They might win in the short term (or maybe not: would American soldiers really wholesale shoot American civilians? Not to mention, the American military can't even control Iraq--it sure as hell isn't big enough to control the US, about 20 times larger), but they'd lose in the long term. Even if the Feds tried to pull it off, they couldn't switch the US to a command economy fast enough to avoid economic collapse.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

    Open rebellion would be catastrophic to the state.

    If armed hostilities were to commence:

    1) I don't think that most US soldiers would lift a finger to shoot at American citizens. Most are ardently conservative and would very like side with the rebels. Of course if liberals were to openly rebel, all bets are off.

    2) They have cool shit, but there is no way that a whole shitload of that cool shit wouldn't somehow "fall off the truck" and end up in said rebels' hands, and if we look to the Vietnamese, Iraqis and Afghanis, we have a very good model for defeating the American military.

    Either way, even if just 10% of the people openly rebelled, we're talking 30 million people. There's no way any military force could withstand that kind of opposition short of drastic measures.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Take a majority in the House, but no majority in the Senate. Mix in a hostile President, defiant minority House Leadership, and weak-tea Republicans in the Senate. What do you have?

    Sound and Fury from the Tea-Partiers in the House and not much else. I foresee many temporary bills and budget extenders, but no real progress.

    All I am really expecting from this "Republican Wave" is some obstruction.

    My hope is to see very little compromise, but I am not counting on that.

  • ||

    Or maybe, just maybe, they will take the opportuity to make the hard choices, since they will both take the blame.

    Nah you're right it wil never happen.

  • ||

    All I am really expecting from this "Republican Wave" is some obstruction.

    You write that like that is a bad thing. I look forward to obstruction. Having one party control both houses and the presidency was a very bad thing. Luckily, Pelosi & Reid were so inept, as the damage of the last two years could have been even greater.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Don't get me wrong, overall I think obstruction in Washington is a good thing.

    However, I would prefer to see an advance (or "progress" to answer your next question) of a smaller more limited Government agenda. That is not going to happen in the current Washington environment.

  • ||

    but no real progress

    Define "progress"

  • JohnD||

    Progress = Stopping Obama's socialist agenda.

  • Mike the Grouch||

    socialist. snort! Obama has just saved capitalism. That is, he has just saved the hides of many a capitalist.

  • JohnD||

    I disagree with Gillespe. I think this has sent a message to the Dems (and the RINO's) that the people re pissed and 2012 will see more of them replaced. Any Republicans that didn't get the message that this is not the time for business as usual will also be gone.

    Obama went way too far to the left. The pendulum swings once again.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    I don't get that feeling at all. Neither the Donkeys nor the Old-Guard Elephants got the message.

    The Democrats have been spinning a "money corrupted the election" message from the minute the Citizen's United case was decided. If they truly understood the message the voters were sending they would not be doubling down by keeping Pelosi in the leadership of the House minority or have the President continue talking as if the "shellacking" were just a messaging problem.

    In contrast, if the Republican leadership truly took the election's message to heart they would have invited a few prominent Tea-Party candidates into the leadership fold and they would be using this lame-duck period to talk serious spending cuts and major Government roll-backs. Instead they are actively blocking out the new blood and having trouble even passing a non-binding resolution on symbolic budget cuts (earmarks).

    We will see if the people are still angry in 2012, but I wouldn't count on that.

    As historic as this mid-term was in terms of numbers. The actual impact is going to be small.

  • GMT II||

    How about a shorter edit of your post.

    We are doomed!

    Whew, that was a lot quicker.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Shorter...but not a true summation of my post.

    Short summary that is more accurate:
    Neither party listened to the message of the voters!

  • Realist ||

    Right!

  • ||

    I wish the pendulum would snap, instead of inching closer to our necks.

  • ||

    The problem is that you can't vote for people outside "the system" because they either can't get on the ballot or can't afford to run a campaign.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The only message Team Blue got is that they weren't liberal enough with their policy; that they compromised too much.

    Stupid fucks they are.

  • Wind Rider||

    The best we can hope for is gridlock, on the legislative front. About the only bright spot is the potential for Team Red running the investigations of the corruption and buffoonery by Team Blue, particularly their kid Skippy down 1600 way. We won't likely see a full blown Clintonian impeachment circus, because who the fuck wants SloJoe sitting at the adult's table?

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Sounds like the American people keep voting for lower taxes and increased government spending, and the two parties keep giving it to them, sort of like democracy. Yeah, it can't go on forever, but it isn't forever yet.

  • asdf||

    And this is the real problem :/

  • ||

    Heh. It's funny 'cause it's true.

  • Realist ||

    No, the midterm elections did not matter. Fucking idiots can still vote. At best we are living under the rule of people nominated and elected by those with an average IQ of 100!

  • ||

    Did the mid-terms matter? Not really. We just replaced FDR-worshipping big government left-wingers with Reagan-worshipping big government right-wingers.

  • Kyle Smith||

    As several individual posts mentioned. This country is most likely destined for civil unrest in the near future. In these recent midterms all that occured was the same thing that happened last time and time again. The politicians just told people what they wanted to hear to secure their seats. In this era no matter who we vote for the result is the same: a corrupt inefficient government. In this country corruption is less visible than others. Too many laws have been put in place to aid the corrupt over the course of the past decades. To solve such a problem 'old school' methods of dealing with such matters need to be reinstated. As a friend of mine put it, "Instead of slapping their hands when they get caught going into the cookie jar. Their hands should be cut off." By the way for those people who were thinking civil war. You are most likely not far off base. The massive protests/ marches for immigration that occurred in every major city were only a test to gauge the strength of an 'enemy'. It is one of the basic rules in warfare. The government knows they are losing their 'grip' on this country. They had to know what they were going to be up against in an all out showdown on their own turf.

  • Tony||

    I'm sure the Yankees will be glad to hand your ass to yourself, again.

  • ||

    The divide this time won't be between North and South, it will be between the centre and the coasts--take a look at electoral map.

  • Tony||

    Well it's really urban vs. rural. For some reason rural denizens tend to think revolution is an acceptable to response to their party losing an election.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, European protesters use actual violence to resist slight changes in their welfare benefits. Civil unrest will come in many forms. The whole world is now in the coalition government stage of "The Road to Serfdom." Basically, there are a few loud pluralities manipulating the political system, and the idea of true majority agreement is a joke.

  • ||

    I wouldn't even necessarily put it between urban and rural, though that will be how much of it will break down. The biggest source of tension is the suburbs. Though you could call me excessively optimistic I can't help but think that we will somehow muddle our way through this without serious unrest.

  • Mike the Grouch||

    No one who resides in the suburbs is seriously going to participate in any meaningful insurrection. Rebellion of that sort is not available by the case at Costco.

  • yojimbo||

    Considering that there were twice as any union soldiers as confederate, I would hardly say the Yankees handed the Confederates anything. Besides, that is an inaccurate analogy.

  • ||

    A few Republicans got the Tea Party's message. Most did not. We need to keep them hearing it: STOP SPENDING! That "R" after your name will not be enough to keep you in office if your next newsletter brags about pork you've brought home to my district.

  • Time||

    I'm looking into my crystal ball and here's what I see.

    Behind closed doors, the Ds and Rs will come to an agreement whereby the Rs get to keep the 700B tax cut extension. In return Ds get a nice pat on the back and maybe, if they're extra special good, a repeal of DADT.

    Meanwhile no one does anything about the budget. EVER. Kyl gets his 100s of million dollars in nuclear pork, Ds get to keep buying the votes of the poor, and Ron Paul keeps pissing in the wind like it matters.

    I'm a D, blue blood and all, but this is getting rediculous. I would give what I think are quick easy budget fixes, but what's the point?

    Really the only opinion I have at the moment is that I hate the baby boomers. Everytime anyone between 50-60 comes on television and talk about politics it just sounds like a 7 year old girl crying about not getting candy. In some cases they actually cry, at least my party isn't that pathetic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQc_TH4iVV8

    If anyone on this board is a baby boomer, how do you live with your generation?

  • ||

    I'm 57, and I'm thoroughly tired of all the country's welfare losers--mostly Dems, of course--demanding a free ride and free lunches at my expense. I expect a lot of my generation agrees with me and I don't have the slightest problem living with that.

  • Time||

    Seriously, Red States:
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/r.....w/266.html
    and I live in one. With the exception of N.M. Republican.... ehhh that's a strawman argument.

    I actually deal with the poor on a regular basis. They are actually pretty diverse with the exception of being abject failures in a lot of ways.
    I tried looking up the statistics on the % of welfare recipients who are Reps vs. Ds. no luck sadly. If its any consolation though, the average fox news viewer is 65. All those Reps have SS and Medicare going for them. I don't know if you can call an old person a "welfare loser" without getting yelled at though.

    If anyone on this board knows the % of reps vs. Ds on welfare, I would love to hear it.

  • Mike the Grouch||

    Up is down and black is white! The welfare losers are all Democrats! The biggest money drain we have going is welfare! My priorities are spot on and I know what I'm talking about!

  • ||

    "Whatever else you can say about the midterms, it seems clear that the nation didn't send 100-plus new faces to Washington as reinforcements in battles over gays in the military or abortion rights."
    It's also clear that the new Reps and Senators are not going to battle FOR gays in the military (how exactly would that help military preparedness or save money?) and the "right" to murder children. And I am glad of that. I can only hope they will use the defunding process to bring real reason that accords with the needs of the human soul to Washington.

  • Realist ||

    Here, here!

  • Realist ||

    OOOppps, was meant for Brian in Montana

  • Brian in Montana||

    John D - "Progress = Stopping Obama's socialist agenda."
    As opposed to the Republicans limited government, Constitutional agenda?

    JohnD|11.29.10 @ 9:26AM
    You assume that people aren't fucking retarded and will learn from history. Most people in this country can't see passed the end of their nose and are some of the most ignorant people in the world.
    The Tea Party had it's message polluted when it was gang raped by the GOP and most of those who associate with the Tea Parties aren't willing to take the hits that need to be taken regarding SS, MC and Offense (or if you prefer, Defense). Until they are willing to address those three items they are just as much a problem as your average Democrat or Republican. And the only pols that will be tossed in 2012 are those that actually do mention the 3 no, no's.

  • ||

    Reminds me of some lyrics in an old song

    Meet the new boss
    same as the old boss

  • ||

    Republicans are squishes because the voters are squishes. Gillespie is simply wrong if he believes the public wants a major reduction in government. You couldn't get a reasonable reform of social security and medicare passed at a tea party conference, let alone supported by the public at large. I wish Gillespie were right and the public was demanding that the government "just stop spending," but he isn't.

  • ||

    The public wants the strongest military in the world, extravagant government benefits (for themselves, not others), and no taxes.

  • Skep41||

    Nick Gillespie is right. The people who make it far enough to be in congress have too much invested in the system to achieve any meaningful reform. This is like France before the revolution; the money men are trying to adjust the system to accommodate the growing crowd of dependents and subsidy suckers while revenues decline and the expense of servicing the debt grows. Here in California we have thrown all caution to the winds and have elected a government composed nearly 100% of mental defectives (Democrats and liberal Republiclowns). We will generate a catastrophe within a couple of months of the inauguration of 'Jerry The Jerk' that will add to the collapse of the equally clueless Euro-trash social democracies to make every bond, currency note and any other piece of paper or promise backed by any of the welfare states completely worthless.

  • ||

    Après nous, le déluge.

    Politicians of both parties are more interested in looting the treasury than in fixing the nation.

  • ||

    Some people posting refer to Social Security and Medicare as social programs. They aren't. Social Security was started on 08/14/35 by FDR and Medicare on 07/30/65 however, you are required under the law if you have a job to pay out 6% of your salary and your employer pays out another 6% for your social security. Think about it, how much should the Social Security Trust Fund be worth now if the politicians did not loot it and pay for other programs like SSI, earmarks?
    It should be in the trillions of dollars easily. The politicians refer to Social Security and Medicare so that they can gut the benefits due to the taxpayers who paid into it! This is the taxpayers monies so, do not allow the politicians and others to lie about it! Obamacare robbed the Medicare Trust Fund of $500 billion to give to Obamacare. The social programs are SSI, Section 8, Earned Income Credit where they take the taxes you pay and give that "free" money to someone else! The sad state of the United States can be traced to the ignorant posting their garbage comments to advance their political agendas and nothing else!

  • ||

    The Medicare/Social Security Tax is a tax almost exclusively paid for by the middle class. There is no "trust fund" and there never was. It is a tax and always has been.

    Congress has taken our money and used it to buy votes. This includes not only welfare programs, but defense systems we don't need (but provide jobs in their districts), and programs to promote the social agenda of the party in power. Both parties do it.

  • ||

    I dunno, there are a few serious Senators and Congressmen out there. Marco Rubio is one. Paul Ryan is another.

  • ||

    Ya wanna know why all stuff you mentioned on here may well happen? Because far too many people on our side are like you; instead of taking the attitude, 'we're gonna make the bastards do what they're supposed to', such people take a timid, hand-wringing, pessimistic wait-and-see approach.

    The establishment has shown that it respects strength and preys on weakness. When we're strong, they listen; when we're weak, they eat us.

  • ||

    THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO

    I read an article in Politico on the agenda of MoveOn.org, which explains their new agenda, now that the most liberal politician in our history has been elected President. Got me thinking of what it would look like if the "right" would develop a plan to resist MoveOn, Obama and the age of huge (not just big) government. These people at MoveOn did not wait for politicians in Washington to step up to their agenda - they stepped up to the politicians and said "you are going to do this, or else." We Christians and Conservatives, likewise cannot continue to howl and fuss at liberals who do not fight for the Founding Principles upon which our nation was founded. If MoveOn and the Daily Kos can do it, so can we. And we must. The attack plan below to restore Constitutional government, is just a start but should include:
    1.Establish the groundwork for a boycott of the federal income tax. If you no longer feel the federal government is operating within the confines of the Constitution, you have a moral obligation to become a conscientious objector and simply say NO to the payment of taxes to Washington. Does the Constitution give the Feds the right to bail out labor unions and give non-citizens rights and benefits? If you feel that by doing so, our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void then so is any responsibility you may have had for taxes under the 16th Amendment. 2. Begin a vigorous campaign to urge the public to home-school and/or send their children to private schools, with or without vouchers. Then begin a major program to build a private, non-union school system. This is the only way we will crack the huge union dominated government school bureaucracy. 3. Begin to use the legal system to fight big government. If the ACLU can do it, why can't we? We must begin to bring suit on every issue that threatens our nation's original freedoms and traditions. 4. We begin a systematic march on the media, especially television. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda is being implemented. The left learned long ago that a picture is worth a thousand words and the best example of this is the pictures of bodies of dead soldiers they broadcast every time we are in a war they do not approve of (usually when a Republican is leading it!). Holding pro-America, Republican rallies at local TV stations would be a great start - especially if the liberals re-implement the "Fairness" Doctrine. 5. Boycott employers who advertise on far left liberal media outlets like NBC. No patriotic American should buy a General Electric household product as long as Matthews, Olbermann and their ilk are permitted to spew their anti-Republican, anti-American hatred. 6. Expose the controlling roll that unions play in growing a totalitarian media/government complex. 7. Establish an underground network of physicians and health care providers that will fight to preserve private sector medicine. 8. Establish Committees of Correspondence and Safety to provide communications and security - just as our Founding Fathers did. 9. Join the NRA as we have just as much right to carry guns under the 2nd Amendment as the media does to carry cameras under the 1st Amendment. 10. Demand adherence to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution and promote and support state sovereignty efforts. 11. Tell your health care providers that they do NOT have your permission to enter your private medical information in a Federal data base as required in the recently passed (and unconstitutional) so called Stimulus law. 12. Give every American citizen two million dollars, deposited in a bank of their choice, in conjunction with the elimination of Social Security and all federal welfare programs such as WIC, S-CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc. Shut them all down 13. Repeal the 17th Amendment and last but certainly not least: 14. Repeal the law that makes government employee unions legal.
    These are just a few of the actions that are necessary to first stop and then roll back the liberal juggernaut that threatens our basic freedoms and liberty. In our Declaration of Independence, our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It is not too late for us to make that same commitment; in fact it is just in time.
    THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. – Thomas Paine, The Crisis, December 23, 1776

  • ||

    What we need is an unending series of measures from the House designed to pass the Senate and force Obama to make defining vetos. Once in a while we might see an override, but that's not the point. The objective is to get vulnerable Senators and the President on record.

  • SINNER||

    "The good news about the recent midterms? There's another election in just two years."

    The bad news is that in two years we can choose the big spending Republicans or the big spending Democrats.

    I, for one, welcome our big spending overlords... with pitchforks, torches and unwashed lederhosen.

  • ||

    Of course we the people have every right to be cynical but maybe we could just hold it for a few months? The incoming house freshman hold the balance of power in any plausible coalition for actual cuts in federal spending painful tho they may be. Now is the time. Let's give them as much support as we can!

  • ||

    Oh c'mon man? "Give every citizen two million dollars." Uh, that equals six hundred TRILLION dollars. Hello Zimbabwe!

    This a libertarian site?

  • ||

    Let's see now...if "our sovereignty, Constitution and Bill of Rights are null and void", then the restraints on the government to prevent its "...abridging the freedom of speech,...press;...right of the people peaceably to assemble,...petition...for a redress of grievances..." etc. no longer exist.
    At least not in DeVan's World.
    Therefor DeVan will not complain after being locked up with "The Privilege of...Habeas Corpus..." having been suspended as the rebellious "attack plan" that "is just a start" is deemed a threat to "the public Safety..."
    Good work DeVan!

  • qualir||

    Although some commentators see an opportunity for bipartisan compromise, after the experience of the past two years, when Washington looked more like a steel-cage wrestling match than a forum for rational deliberation, there is little reason to believe that the parties will find any areas of agreement.

  • shiroi neko||

    It does matter.

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement