Anthony Weiner and the Case for Limited Government
Scott Ott has posted a terrific column today on how the Anthony Weiner scandal makes the case for smaller government. Here’s a sample:
Constitutional Conservatives should sit down this day and write a “thank you” letter to Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9th) for proving, once again, that size matters.
Rep. Weiner, through his scandalous, adulterous, perverted, deceptive, and slanderous behavior, dramatized the wisdom of the Constitutional doctrines of enumerated powers and checks and balances more effectively than any think-tank white paper, talk show rant, or polemical essay could do.
Like the prophet Isaiah, walking about naked to foreshadow the coming exile of the Egyptians and the folly of Israel’s trust in her opportunistic ally, Rep. Weiner’s self-disclosure has graphically illustrated the need for smaller, limited government.
However, while Rep. Weiner should become a poster-child for the battle against large, centralized, unaccountable, bureaucratic government, he must not become an isolated exception. He’s not a freak. He’s the norm.
You see, the great risk to the Right in the midst of this sumptuous feast of Schadenfreude is that we would see it merely as Weiner’s problem, or as simply indicative of the moral vacuity of the Democrats or of the Left. It’s much more important than that. Weiner has a handicap that is shared by every lawmaker, and every voter.
Weiner is not an aberration. He typifies Congress, because he is human. And for that reason, we must move rapidly to restrain his ilk from the dangers posed by their restless, reckless, covert humanity … and by ours.
He also correctly analyzes the President’s own attitude towards the Constitution:
Mr. Obama longed for a constitution that would specify what the government “must do on your behalf.” Predictably, he wants to centralize control of our housing, banking, health care, automobile, petroleum, education, charity, and other formerly free enterprises.
As smart as Mr. Obama may be, the dullest wit in the convention of 1787 and the subsequent state-by-state ratifying conventions would put him to shame. They knew that because power is so tempting, and the concentrated consequences of transgression so devastating, we should not put all of our eggs in one basket.
By restraining the federal government to a few, specific functions, and setting it up with checks and balances, and yes, negative liberties, we mitigate the harmful effects of human nature. Smaller government is also easier to monitor, and error and evil harder to hide.
Be sure to read the whole thing.