In less than two years he’s gone from one of the most popular presidents of all time to being President Zero, and now President Minus 22 Percent. That’s even less popular than Bill English.
Nile Gardiner gives ten reasons key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown. The best reason to celebrate? Number 5: “Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat.”
But there might be even more good news. Dislike for the Obama Administration doesn’t guarantee anything better on the horizon. (Just see what’s happened here in NZ!) Robert Tracinski, however, suggests a new political “camp” forming within the Tea Party movement might offer some hope for genuine political change. It’s called “constitutional conservatism.”
Let's look at precisely what the phrase means, as I have gathered from how it is being used. A "constitutional conservative" is someone who wants to restrain the power of government within the original limits set for it by the US Constitution. Specifically, "constitutional conservatives" want to resurrect the doctrine of enumerated powers, which constrains Congress to stick to the small number of limited powers explicitly described in Article I of the Constitution. …One of the top agenda items of the "constitutional conservatives" [is] a requirement that all legislation proposed in Congress has to "point to where they are enumerated in the Constitution."
The label "constitutional conservative" is based on the recognition that [the American] system of government, as originally conceived by America's Founding Fathers, would be radically smaller than it is today, that the Founders' vision is fundamentally incompatible with the majority of current government programs and with the vast array of current government controls on the economy.
It is clear that the rise of this new term is a powerfully good trend. For the first time, there is a strain of "conservatism" that we can actually sign on to—though the use of the term "conservative" is still a misnomer. "Constitutional conservatism" is "conservative" only in the sense that it seeks to "conserve" the original meaning of the Constitution. But in today's context, it is actually a radical and ideological agenda that would require overturning the past one hundred years of political precedent…
It’s early days, but it sounds promising.