Goldberg falsely suggested Democratic presidents did not "invok[e]" Founders during their inaugural addresses
SUMMARY: On Beck, Jonah Goldberg said of President Obama's inauguration speech: "I salute Barack Obama for invoking the Founding Fathers. At the minimum, it is good that the Democratic Party wants to start revering the Founders." Contrary to Goldberg's suggestion that Obama's invocation of the Founders was a first for a Democratic president, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both "invok[ed]" the Founders during their inaugural addresses.
During the January 20 edition of Fox News' Beck, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said of President Obama's inauguration speech: "I salute Barack Obama for invoking the Founding Fathers. At the minimum, it is good that the Democratic Party wants to start revering the Founders." Contrary to Goldberg's suggestion, Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both specifically "invok[ed]" the Founders during their inaugural addresses.
Former President Bill Clinton "invok[ed]" the Founders in both of his inaugural addresses. In his January 20, 1993, speech, Clinton said, "When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals -- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness." Clinton also referenced Thomas Jefferson: "Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my fellow citizens, this is our time. Let us embrace it."
During his January 20, 1997, inaugural address, Clinton stated: "We -- the American people -- we are the solution. Our founders understood that well and gave us a democracy strong enough to endure for centuries." Clinton also stated: "Our founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship."
Additionally, Carter "invok[ed]" the Founders during his inaugural address. In his January 20, 1977, speech, Carter said, "Two centuries ago our Nation's birth was a milestone in the long quest for freedom, but the bold and brilliant dream which excited the founders of this Nation still awaits its consummation. I have no new dream to set forth today, but rather urge a fresh faith in the old dream."
From the January 20 edition of Fox News' Beck:
BECK: Can I push this one minute just a bit? Because I'd like to play a little bit from -- this is from Obama's inaugural speech today, where he talked about the founding of our country and how we always survive. Listen to this from the inaugural speech today.
OBAMA [video clip]: In these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding document.
BECK: OK, stop. First of all, all three of us laughed when he said "because of, you know, the intelligence of the people in the office." It's in spite of those people in Washington, usually. But then he goes on to say that "we stayed true to our founding documents." Can you give me something from -- give me James Madison.
Here's a quote from James Madison -- we don't have him on tape, just -- here it is, "The government of the United States is a definite government confined" -- sorry, I don't have my glasses -- "confined to the specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Give me Thomas Jefferson. Here's Thomas Jefferson's line. Do we have it? We don't have it. OK. Well, I guess -- Thomas Jefferson was basically saying -- here it is. Go ahead. Jefferson quote, "A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuit of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." That is a million miles away from where we are now and what we heard from this new president.
DAVID PIETRUSZA (historian): And the founding documents was the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the people and to the states. And we have gone against that for probably since the last 100 years almost, since the progressive era.
GOLDBERG: Yes, to understand the progressive era, you know, the founding fathers, the founding documents -- and I salute Barack Obama for invoking the Founding Fathers. At the minimum, it is good that the Democratic Party wants to start revering the Founders. That opens the door to explaining --
BECK: Yes.
GOLDBERG: -- explaining to them what the founders actually believed. But the Founders had a vision of government. Government is the people, you know; the people form the government. The progressives bring in from German state theory the state -- der Staat. And the state has a Hegelian concept, much broader, and basically runs the entire society, suffuses itself into nook and cranny of society. It's responsible for the entire organic nation, drives everything. That concept comes from the progressives, and that is what we are living with today.
Tuesday mornings are my favorite because Jonah's editorials are published in the LA Times. It's a feminized version of a Coulter bit, week after week. It's all thinly veiled racism and homophobia, but then he throws in big words and concepts to sound George Will-like, but completely bungles how the concept relates to what he's talking about. The man is a joke.
Since most of our founding fathers were deists, shouldn't the Religious Right hate our Founding Fathers?
Good point. They don't really like much of the founding fathers' ideals like freedom and democracy. But some of the "religious right" seem to like the 18th century racism & sexism, however.
Kyle, people like Goldberg don't really like the Founding Fathers. "Founding Fathers" is just a trademark they throw around to give themselves a false image of legitimacy. They ignore the fact that a lot of them were Deists and even more who were Congregationalists were not regular churchgoers and were even critical of the role of the church in their communities. So they invent a different version of the FFs who were all deeply pious, bible-toting men who Founded This Nation on Christian PrinciplesTM.
Somehow, they think that THEY are the ones with deep respect for history and tradition, even as they ignore the history they don't like and create traditions for the FFs they themselves did not follow.
What, if anything, would Fox News pundits say if there was ever any acountabilty for their boobonic remarks?
Okay, two things. First:
DAVID PIETRUSZA (historian): And the founding documents was the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the people and to the states.
Apparently, he's not much of a historian. First, I assume the first word was actually "among," not "and." But this is the text of the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
At the time the Bill of Rights was being considered, some wanted it to say "expressly delegated" - but ultimately it didn't, which means a deliberate decision was made to not make it into the narrow declaration that Pietrusza would.
Second, consider Goldberg's remark. Suppose it was true. Suppose previous Democratic presidents hadn't "invoked the founders." So flaming what? What possible difference could that make, what possible relevance could it have? But it's just like their selective quotations from Madison and Jefferson, just like all their arguments and claims: nit-picking at details to obscure their lack of a comprehensive rebuttal.
Well, if we're going to throw Jefferson quotes around, they should try this one:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Larry,
Your knowledge of the 10th amendment notwithstanding, nothing you said counters Pietrusza's point that the founding fathers through the 10th amendment constrained the federal government to only enumerated powers.
The other quotes that were used only back up that point. If you believe the founding fathers believed differently, your example of not including the words, "expressly delegated" does not, in my opinion, prove your point.
Goldberg's point is that if Obama is going to invoke the founding fathers wishes, he believes that will open up a dialog about what is their intent regarding the federal government. Does anyone here actually believe Jefferson or Madison would be in favor of the usurption of power by the federal government at the expense of individual liberty over the past 100 years?
Too bad Goldberg had to rely on a B.S. premise about Democrats to illustrate his alleged point.
. Does anyone here actually believe Jefferson or Madison would be in favor of the usurption of power by the federal government at the expense of individual liberty over the past 100 years? AA
From what I've read, he'd HATE the Patriot Act.
You're right, AA - they would've hated the Bush Junta.
But they did own slaves, maybe that's where they and Barney would have found some happy ideological common ground. I think AA's still a little peeved about the Civil War.
There there. Time to let it go.
Yes, you should get over November 2008.
nothing you said counters Pietrusza's point
Sorry, AA, but it does and stubborn insistence to the contrary does not alter that fact. Pietrusza argued for limited federal and expanded state powers by claiming that the 10th amendment limited the federal government to those powers "specifically delegated" (emphasis added) to it in the rest of the Constitution.
But the historical fact is that a deliberate decision was made in formulating the amendment not to modify "delegated" with "expressly," leaving it in a more general, open-ended form (which is generally regarded as simply a truism) in order to avoid limiting the "necessary and proper" clause.
Pietrusza's desire to misunderstand the 10th amendment in order to limit federal authority runs counter to history, counter to Constitutional scholarship, and counter to Constitutional interpretation through the courts. He's wrong. And so are you.
Interesting, Larry. I didn't know the details of the wording of the amendment. It's been a while since I studied these, but wasn't the Bill of Rights only applied to fed. law originally? I guess why the "states rights" chant seems to come out of the mouth of backwards racists so often.
Don't waste any time trying to explain this to the hypnotized. This has apparently been wingnuttized just like the establishment clause, which has been twisted to say that no single, specific denomination of Christianity should dominate our government above other denominations.
Larry,
You are arguing that the word "expressly", since it is missing in the 10th Amendment, allows one to interpret the amendment as something opposite of what is clearly written.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is clearly a lawyers argument as the meaning of the amendment is evident. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituion... does not have to have the word expressly in order to be clear in it's meaning.
One can easily see that if the Constitution does not specifically delegate the Federal Government the power, the Federal Government does not have the right to assume that power.
You are simply word parsing and trying to say the clear meaning of the amendment is different because of a word that was never put in it in the first place.
"Does anyone here actually believe Jefferson or Madison would be in favor of the usurption of power by the federal government at the expense of individual liberty over the past 100 years?"
I'll allow to to say this opinion with nothing/anything said by me about it, as long as you are willing to recognize and accept the fact that the founding fathers would be absolutley horrified and completely disgusted at the usurpation of the power you speak of by the Bush/Cheney regime and not just the fact that they did it at all... but by how they did it and for what they used (9/11) in order to do it!
Capt,
While we may disagree over who did what or how they did it, I think we are in agreement that the founding fathers would have lots of issues over the size, scope, and expansion of the federal government as it exists today.
As an aside, I wonder where it will all stop. When will the goverment finally say, we cannot spend anymore?
Goldberg is an idiot. He's a less-educated male version of Ann Coulter.
The only reason he gets to write books and pretend to be a historian is because his mother helped set the perjury trap for Bill Clinton. Her payoff is that her imbecile son gets to appear on FOX "News" and peddle nonsense.
And isn't he Canadian too?
If Jonah Goldberg says the sky is blue and water is wet, you'd better check to make sure.
Goldberg was on Beck?
Can l hope this was in a prison bitch way, or am l going too far?
It's good to see that someone is keeping th D.C village going now that Crawford has it's idiot back.
This clown is still around? I assume he's the son or husband of someone influential, otherwise I fail to see how he still manages to get work.
He is the son of the conservative Lucianne Goldberg.
That keeps him in a job and on tv as an "expert".
uk,
Everyone is someone's child. Goldberg is a very interesting speaker and astute political observer. He can sometimes be acerbic, but even if you don't agree with him, that makes his columns fun to read.
His last book was thoroughly researched and exhaustively made the case of how modern day liberalism is a form of fascism by tracing the history of socialism and how it branched out into various forms of communism, fascism, and liberalism.
You may not agree, but it is very well done. Goldberg is much more than Lucianne's son.
Wow - astute political observer in stating "liberalism = fascism"? Really. And you agree with this? When one is clearly right wing and the other on the left?
goldberg was one of the people who was promoting the "roosevelt made the depression worse" line a couple weeks ago. he compared roosevelt to coolidge, very conveniently leaving out hoover.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'd like to know who appointed choads like Jonah Goldberg as Keepers of the True Faith, to come on television and write books and op-eds to tell us who is Patriotic and who isn't, who defends the Constitution and who doesn't, who reflects the "values" (slave-owning, no voting rights unless you are a property-owning white male over the age of 21, etc.) of the founders, etc. etc.
As far as I'm concerned, if Jonah Goldberg says some action is Unpatriotic, I'm inspired to go out and do it. If he says a politician is somehow going against the "intent" of the Founding Fathers, I'm sending that politician money. And I'm going to spend each day wishing that someone would tell me who hired Goldberg to be the Judge of All Things Good, Proper and Patriotic.
Well said.
Great bit of liberal logic. (I'm surprised you did not threaten to hold your breath.) :-)
Relevent, topical, just unsure where they might be that.