The New York Times Accidentally Exposes Progressivism’s Dirty Secret
Anyone who has ever looked at how Progressives were able to achieve – hey, it’s an achievement to them – the disaster we’re just beginning to feel the effects of on a grand scale, already knew that they hold the Constitution in contempt. It’s a hindrance to their utopian, heaven-on-earth goals which we know has historically led to misery and government sanctioned mass murder. But, they can do it better than everyone who has tried before! Trust them!
Thankfully, the New York Times is feeling all bold and decided to give up the ghost by publishing an op-ed by a professor of constitutional law tellingly titled “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
The article was written, apparently, by a professor who was annoyed that the Constitution was preventing the Senate from just creating a bill to avert the fiscal cliff because tax bills are constitutionally mandated to originate in the House. This irked the professor so he decided that we should basically scrap the Constitution in response. It’s too cumbersome.
He then goes on to advocate we simply ignore the stuff we don’t like. Ironically, this is what Progressives have been doing for decades when they’re in power. They get very protective of the Constitution when they’re not in power and someone else stretches the confines of our founding document, but it is almost always a narrow issue that they make noise about in order to peel off some votes and get back into power. When Progressives ignore constitutional boundaries, they always go big. Real big. Destroying-the-Commerce-Clause big. Completely-perverting-the-Welfare-Clause big. Stuff-that-renders-the-concept-of-limited-government-irrelevant big.
When they’re not ignoring things, they make things up and convince enough people that it’s in there. See: Roe v Wade.
So I have to give the New York Times some credit since they cleverly made ignoring the Constitution a new thing worth considering. That took some skill. But the bottom line is that it isn’t new, they’re just trying to put a new wrapping around their century old modus operandi in the hopes of leveraging the frustration over the fiscal cliff into a brave new world of progressive dominance where they get to set the rules, ignore the rules, all the while forcing everyone else to follow the rules.
That’s how they operate. The David Gregory situation highlights it perfectly. The New York Times just took it to a whole new level.