Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > January > 12
Friday, January 12, 2007
‘Vapid’ this, ‘vapid’ that: Fields responds to Barr on Sunday alcohol sales
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Last month, on the editorial pages of the Journal-Constitution, Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr endorsed a repeal of Georgia’s blue laws, and admonished religious conservative leader Sadie Fields for her defense of state laws barring the sale of alcohol on Sundays.
Barr referred to her arguments as “vapid.”
On Friday, Fields circulated an article written by her son, Marty Fields, a Mississippi pastor — aimed at Georgia’s op-ed pages. Darned if that same, descriptive word doesn’t turn up:
“[The Libertarian] view is that personal freedom is paramount, and that the state should be neutral in matters of personal morality — a position that is as irrational as it is intellectually vapid,” the son writes in defense of his momma.
Read the entire Fields piece below.
BARR LOWERS THE BAR
If someone is threatening to take away your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or you need someone to clearly articulate the meaning and application of the Tenth Amendment guaranteeing states’ rights, there is no one better to have in your court than former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr.
The political and religious left couldn’t stand Barr when he was in Congress because of his keen ability as a Constitutional scholar.
Due to liberals gerrymandering his congressional district Barr was forced to run against another popular conservative and he lost in the primary.
Since leaving Congress Barr has tirelessly devoted himself to defending personal liberty by fighting the encroachment of the federal government in our private lives. He has even - somewhat controversially - worked with the ultra-left ACLU on keeping government snooping in check.
Barr, a longtime Libertarian, has made it his mission to keep the government out of our personal lives, and has sanctioned this philosophy by accepting a leadership position with the Libertarian National Committee.
But in a recent editorial Barr misfired in his reasoning against what are known as the “Blue Laws.”
Many of us grew up when many states had blue laws. On Sunday businesses were not allowed to open, and tobacco and alcohol were not for sale. Sunday was a day of rest.
Georgia, Barr’s home state, is one of the few states that still has blue laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday, and it is considering repealing the law.
Barr has written in favor of repeal arguing that blue laws are an encroachment on personal liberty. He says those who want to maintain such laws as trying to “force nonbelievers into conformity.” In other words, those who want to keep blue laws are seeking to impose their religious viewpoints on others.
On many issues I agree with Barr and his libertarian ideals. The Bible itself teaches limited government, a decentralized free-market system, and protects many personal liberties.
But Libertarianism derails in its inability to develop and justify a cogent ethical philosophy. At its root Libertarianism and its advocates suffer from an incurable case of inconsistency and arbitrariness when it comes to state regulation on personal behavior.
Their view is that personal freedom is paramount, and that the state should be neutral in matters of personal morality - a position that is as irrational as it is intellectually vapid.
What Barr and other Libertarians fail to acknowledge is that such moral neutrality is impossible. By seeking to influence legislation with their viewpoint they are trying to force others to live by their ideals - the very thing they claim to oppose.
Saying that it is “wrong” for the state to interfere with and individual’s personal liberties is itself a moral and religious belief. Ultimately the question is not if we will have moral laws governing personal behavior; the question is which viewpoint’s moral laws will be enforced?
Saying people should be given a choice about what they do on Sunday is to take a moral stance. Barr can’t have it both ways. The question is what perspective will influence such regulation.
Regardless of one’s opinion about the blue laws there was something lost when they went away. The loss of Sunday as a day of rest and reflection has not produced a more content and prosperous culture.
Whatever productivity and prosperity is gained by working on Sunday is eclipsed by the increase in recent years of stress-related illnesses, substance abuse, and the negative impact on the family. Christians believe God ordained a day of rest so that we might be better rested and suited to labor for Him the other six days.
A day of rest was built into the creation and it is built into who we are as the image of God. By wanting that optional Barr lowers the bar Christians believe God has established. In the final analysis rolling up the sidewalks on Saturday night may not have been such a bad idea.
Iraq and the ‘08 GOP race for the White House
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Today’s edition of the Washington Times puts U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a potential ‘08 presidential candidate, among seven GOP senators “openly opposed to sending more troops” to Iraq.
This certainly has the potential to muddy the water for the Republican base in the South.
Among many evangelical conservatives, Brownback is the most appealing candidate in the GOP pack. But in Georgia and elsewhere in the region, religious conviction and confidence in military solutions walk hand in hand.
It may be that no current candidate in the Republican presidental ranks has a resume pristine enough to lay natural claim to support from the Religious Right. John McCain, one of the first to advocate more troops for Iraq, is distasteful to many evangelical voters, despite the Arizona senator’s newfound friendship with Jerry Falwell.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney may be the beneficiary of the unsettled situation. Romney’s positions on social issues fit the agenda of the Christian right. And he’s put out a statement placing himself four-square behind President Bush’s shift in strategy.
But again, there are Romney’s past positions, the matter of his religion, and the mere fact that he hails from Massachusetts.
Not pork, but spending “not of federal concern”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Savannah sits on the House Appropriations Committee. No doubt one of the most common questions he no doubt gets — especially from Republicans who put him in office — is about federal spending.
Out-of-control spending disenchanted much of the Republican base last November.
PoliticsTV.com has posted an extended video clip in which Kingston gives a complicated, but refreshingly candid explanation of why grandstanding attempts from the House floor to cut this program or that one don’t usually work.
Kingston admits that federal spending bills often contain items that “probably are not of federal concern — local politics are involved.” None dare call it pork.
But what goes to the House floor, he said, has already been pared down. Kingston makes mention of 95 programs eliminated in one instance, saving $4 billion.
“To get that passed, and not just do it on the Republican side, not just do it on the House floor and make it look good for my good friend Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth folks, but to really make it stick, you have to work with the Democrats.
“You and I would probably not just find 95 programs that we’d eliminate. We’d probably find 200 programs that we’d eliminate. However, the reality is you have to get it past the House floor, then past the Senate floor, then past the president.
“So you find yourself letting projects go that you really don’t like, but in order to get the peace agreement worked out with — not just Democrats, but also with Northeastern Republicans and Western Republicans, who often don’t agree and see things the way you and I do — so you get them packaged together, you hold hands, you get it on the House floor.”
That makes it hard to support attempts to delete this million dollar item or that million dollar item from the floor.
“Most of them would disrupt what we have already done,” Kingston said. “Do you want the 95 programs and $4 billion savings, or do you want, say, 30 to 40 programs and maybe $10 million savings. It’s an easy question.”
A few plums drop the way of two Georgia Democrats
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You’re about to see a lot more of certain Democrats from Georgia, now that Congress is under new management.
U.S. Rep. David Scott of Atlanta has been told that he’s won a much-coveted seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We’re getting word that he may be headed for an anti-terrorism subcommittee, which would raise his profile tremendously.
And this morning, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon will preside over the chamber during the two-hour debate on a measure to require Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors.
Contrast that with the fortunes of two Republicans from Georgia, House members Tom Price of Roswell and Lynn Westmoreland of Sharpsburg.
Both were featured in The Hill newspaper, which covers Congress, in a story on how certain Republicans had adapted to their minority status.
“A lot of us came from the minority in the state legislature and are comfortable being in the opposition,” Westmoreland is quoted as saying.
Westmoreland was House minority leader here. Price served as the Senate minority leader in Georgia, as well as majority leader.
