To Govern a Conservative Country

NEWSWEEK

Published Nov 1, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Nov 10, 2008

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

'America the Conservative': Readers speculated about what it would mean for Barack Obama to lead a center-right nation. "How might a President Obama govern? One thing we can agree on, whether liberal or conservative, is this country will never be the same," one said. Another wrote, "Depending on the issue involved, the reality is that most everyone is both to the right and left, pro- and anti-government programming." But some fretted about what a Democratic sweep would not mean. "One-party rule doesn't work no matter what side controls it."

On 'Just Saying No to Abstinence Ed': "Doesn't it seem better for young people to have safe sex before marriage when they're ready, rather than marry when they have little idea what to expect from matrimony except guilt-free sex?"
Lareign Ward
Ft. Smith, Ark.

Dawn of a Progressive Era?
It's hard to believe the premise of the Oct. 27 cover story, "America the Conservative: How a President Obama Might Govern a Center-Right Nation." Do not the election of 2006, and quite possibly the election of 2008, conclusively demonstrate that the United States is no longer a center-right country, but that conservatism has been found wanting by the American people, who have moved decisively to the left?
Eric Orlin
Seattle, Wash.

Conservatives are defined by Jon Meacham as "those who value custom over change [and] worry about the erosion of the familiar" and who are "driven by a fundamental human impulse to preserve what one has and loves." This unfairly characterizes conservatives as people who simply don't want change. In fact, we are a group who truly believe that this country became the greatest in the world because of the principles upon which it was founded, that we have strayed too far from those principles and that returning to them provides our best hope for the future.
James J. Caruso
Newtown, Pa.

The whole liberal-versus-conservative thing, the us-versus-them mentality, serves no useful purpose but to keep divide-and-conquer politicians in power. Why not judge each issue on its own merits? As for me, I'm an atheist pro-lifer who supports gay marriage and the right to bear arms. That makes me an American.
William Wright
Antioch, Tenn.

Jon Meacham's article "It's Not Easy Bein' Blue" was enlightening. As a South African now living in the United States, I see some parallels between this election and ours in 1994, when we elected our first black president, Nelson Mandela. I'm sure Barack Obama will move toward a position "just right of center" as Mandela did, and with far greater ease, because our situation was way more extreme. As Obama will, Mandela proved to be a cool, rational, dynamic, patriotic, religious and unifying leader who reached across party lines. We entered a period of unprecedented economic growth that continues to this day. The right, as Christopher Buckley believes, has lost its way. A united move to the left now will be seen to be "right" in the long run, just as it was for us.
Hamish Davidson
Fairfield, Iowa

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),
What does redistributive mean. Well, remember that it was the liberal Left-Wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that brought us this little jewel, holding that the government could take your real property, like your home, not for public use like a road or school, but to give to another private individual, such as a political contributor or other party hack or interest group.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/02/2008 4:12:35 PM

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),
What does redistributive mean. Well, remember that it was the liberal Left-Wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that brought us this little jewel, holding that the government could take your real property, like your home, not for public use like a road or school, but to give to another private individual, such as a political contributor or other party hack or interest group.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London