Why I'm not a "full-blown liberal" and never will be

Given our polarized politics, many assume because somebody supports or refutes a given claim of one political party then that person must unconditionally refute or support the other party.  Many assume because I criticize Republicans or "conservatives" so often then I must be a Democrat or a "liberal".

I find it very easy to find fault with current Republican, so-called "conservative" positions.  There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that it surprises me that any educated person would support the party.  Unless he or she had some personal gain from the corporate line parroted by the current Republican Party.  It is so ironic that Republicans and the Tea Party especially, claim to  follow the intent of the "Founding Fathers".  Well, the "Founding Fathers" were very much concerned about factions working against the common good.  If you have a week or two or three, read the Federalist Papers.  You can find it at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18 and choose your format.

On the other hand, I do not actively or even willingly embrace all "liberal" positions.  I find many people who call themselves liberal rather "conservative", that is holding to a position without consideration of nuance or contradictions.  For example, I have taken issue with the "Unfair" campaign.  Although the proponents deny it, their campaign implies a sweeping generalization, just the kind of generalization that they are fighting against when directed against people who are not "white".  Also, I think the "Occupy" movement confuses "freedom of assembly" with "freedom to camp out".

The latest ruckus that I have been skeptical of is the supposedly ill-treatment of workers at Foxconn plants in China.  It was reminiscent of the know-nothings who claimed that Soviet and Chinese workers were "chained to their benches".   Well, those who reported the claims against Foxconn are now having second thoughts about these claims.  See "'Significant Fabrications': Apple Critic Mike Daisey Under Fire".

Regulation of commerce - the intent of the Founders

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- United States Constitution, Article I, Section. 8.

The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States.
- Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton

The Tea Party believes we can get the intent of the Founders by a strict reading of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was one of the signers of the Constitution. "more strongly demands a federal superintendence" is a lot stronger than Article I, Section 8. In other words, some of the writers of the Constitution had a lot stronger intent than was actually put into the Constitution.

Did you celebrate Constitution Day?

"Are you celebrating Constitution Day?" is the title of a Local View that I wrote and was published in the Duluth News Tribune on what else but Constitution Day, September 17. I can't post it here because of the exclusivity agreement the News Tribune requires for submissions, but you can click on the link above.

Because of the mixture of serious thought and flippancy, I thought it might go viral. Well, it has spread a tiny bit, Press Enterprise and Road Runner have linked back to it.

I did have over a dozen people comment on it at church this morning. One friend "complained" to my wife that my writings made her think. I was surprised that there was only one comment on the online version.

That writer stopped reading because he didn't like my introduction and claimed, "The author is completely ignorant of history." His comment received three likes and two dislikes, one of the latter mine.

I tried responding but I couldn't register with Area Voices, the comment service.  I never received the email to complete registration.  I did send a comment to the DNT web staff.

What I tried to respond was:

I read years ago in a biography of Benjamin Franklin that he wrote a letter from Paris to the Continental Congress asking for more money.  Either his letter or the author of the biographry mentioned he needed it to keep his wine cellar well-stocked.  Franklin did do a lot of entertaining (and womanizing).

I took "career politicians" from many sources.  Many members of the Constitutional Convention had been active in the Continental Congress and/or state government.  Also, many continued in politics, including the future presidents George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison.  The authors of the Federalist Papers besides Madison who were members of the Convention were Alexander Hamilton, future Secretary of the Treasury, and John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and then Governor of New York.

I took reasons for the convening of the Constitutional Convention from Gordon S. Wood's "The American Revolution".  I also recommend reading his "The Radicalism of the American Revolution".  I look forward to reading many more of his books on the American Revolution and the early history of the United States.

Is that enough sampling to not be ignorant of history?:)