In various elections–presidential, senatorial, state, or local–powerful politicos frequently offer national endorsements. They use national media and their sway within their national party to show support for candidates across state lines. This practice, although common, has never been subjected to much scrutiny. So let us now to ask: are national endorsements–which are, essentially, a small experiment in politics without borders–justified? Should we exert our influence and spend our prestige to help friends of the party? The correct answer is not entirely clear. Explaining The Rise In Centralization It could be that Senators feel morally compelled to rely on national media and their national party affiliation...Read More
Author: Zigmund Reichenbach
People naturally turn to their leaders when tragedies occur. They search for guidance, consolation, and comfort. These services, however, are not ones citizens should request from government officials. This is especially true when emotions are tense and the facts are unclear. Unless, of course, you seek to establish a semi-religious regime managed by political pastors. In our republic, our congressional leaders are elected to make laws concerning our society that best serve our interests, not to give quasi-evangelical sermons about “equality”, “freedom” or “hatred.” Our reductionist approach to politics stems from the long-standing American idea that the world’s problems can be traced to...Read More
A GOP “skinny repeal” controversy began early Friday morning, when three Republican senators voted “no” on the proposed healthcare repeal. Even more shocking are the reasons why these senators — McCain, Murkowski, and Collins — rejected the bill. Why Did These Senators Break Ranks? Senator John McCain (R-AZ) implied he wouldn’t vote for bill because it did not gain bipartisan support. He has yet to explain why he is suddenly expecting cooperation from Democrats involved in a “resistance.” Senator Murkowski (R-AK) said she voted no “because both sides must do better on process and substance.” She now “stand[s] ready to begin work with my colleagues” on a...Read More
Nationalism is encouraging the president, Congress, or the Supreme Court to create laws binding on every citizen and every state. The definition taken from The Federalist 39 tells us who the real nationalists are: the Democrats. After all, it’s the Democrats who are fond of abusing national power. From New Deal price fixing to mandatory health care, the Democrat’s nationalist plot has chained Americans to the unchecked meddling of the nanny state. But here’s the surprising thing: pure federalism cannot solve the problem of an intrusive national government. In fact, pure federalism nearly destroyed America. Between 1781-1788, the states’ total independence under the Articles of...Read More
The end of conservatism met with a final crescendo in recent months, culminating in the election of Republican president Donald Trump. However, the movement has been crawling toward its inevitable demise for decades–the ongoing decline in institutionalized religion and the fall of communism have irreparably crippled the movement’s capacity for broader appeal and future expansion. Notable conservative historian George Nash, perhaps second only to Russell Kirk in terms of historical knowledge and influence, supports this thesis. Nash notes that, in 1989, the American conservative right consisted of primarily three different, and somewhat overlapping, factions: Ex-communists like David Horowitz, who were...Read More
Get Our Newsletter
Join our mailing list to get breaking news delivered to your inbox.