Thursday, August 27, 2009

Common Sense

Let's start with people who have been carrying guns to presidential rallies and other town hall meetings. The second amendment, after all, gives me the right to keep and bear arms. Some state laws permit me to carry my weapons openly. Are you going to dare deny me my constitutional right to swagger up and down the street with an assault weapon thrown over my shoulder?

We have an absolute right to freedom of speech as well. For those who only know of the existence of the second amendment, we are speaking of the first amendment. However, it is understood that you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless of course there actually is a fire. No one questions the degree of anger and hostility that currently surrounds the issue of health care and the town hall meeting venue. There can be no good reason for brandishing a firearm in such a setting. Any one who fails to see this as a problem is clearly lacking in what was once known as common sense. I know, 'Guns don't kill people, people do'. Let me just say that if people continue to bring guns into such incendiary situations, people will.

Another issue arises from a recent Supreme Court look at a death penalty case. According to Time magazine Justice Paul Stevens noted that the risk of putting an innocent man to death was sufficient reason to reexamine the case. The court in fact ordered a Georgia court to look at new evidence in the case. However, Justice Scalia dissented, saying that the Constitution does not forbid the execution of a convicted man even if there is evidence that he may be innocent. So Justice Scalia has no problem with putting an innocent man to death as long as it is consistent with his understanding of the constitution. That is not my idea of common sense.

Finally, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who once said that 'Government governs best that governs least'. It is a good statement and one that I would certainly not argue with. The real question is what does it mean, and how is it to be interpreted in specific cases? For me the common sense application involves the question of whether government intervention makes things better or worse. Also, is the situation drastic enough that intervention may be required? The recent economic crisis is a good example. Even the very conservative Bush administration saw the economy in freefall and chose to intervene rather than allow the economy to collapse. Many Republicans in the Congress remained committed to their principles and as a result the government bailout nearly failed. Senator McCain kept vacillating as to whether to get on board due to intense pressure from conservative purists. Many said and continue to say 'let them fail' when referring to large banks, financial companies, auto companies etc. However, this is essentially 'laissez faire' taken to the extreme, because such failures would result in dramatic hardships for ordinary people all across the country.

Now we hear the cry in relation to Health Care. Any involvement of government is socialism or worse. These are all examples where sticking to principles becomes the enemy of progress and getting things done. The 'left' can be just as guilty of blindly adhering to what they consider a principled stand. Some on the left in congress today seem willing to kill any health care bill if it is not 'liberal' enough. As we contemplate the death of Mr. Liberalism himself in Senator Edward Kennedy, we should be reminded how he regretted not working with President Nixon years ago to get a pretty good health care bill. He learned the importance of making a deal, and taking a half-loaf if he couldn't get the whole loaf.

I know there are those who may wish to roll back the clock and dismantle Medicare, Social Security, and end government involvement in such areas as education and social welfare. Perhaps some may even yearn for a return to state's rights as understood in the Articles of Confederation we operated under at our nation's founding. This framework proved totally inadequate to the task of governing, even given the small nation we were at the time. The fact is, 'in order to form a more perfect union' we must do what is necessary to make that happen rather than becoming paralyzed due to a rigid adherence to principle. Now is a good time to be more practical, to work together to get things done, and to return to a once revered American virtue - common sense.

1 comment:

steve said...

Isn't Justice Scalia a devout Catholic? Have the Catholic bishops issued any kind of statement as to what a "Catholic" position on health care should consist of? If Justice Scalia can take the stance that he has, he must consider that he is in agreement with the official church position. I guess the bishops are too busy investigating nuns.