Who Has His Head On Straight?

In the last 40 years we've seen a shift in politics.  No, not a shift in the pendulum swing of political philosophy, but a shift in the sense that politicians increasingly seem to be losing sight of their limited roles in our lives.

Presidents, for example, now feel compelled to opine about issues of general interest and concern, but far outside of their limited constitutional duties.

Congress continues to expand the role and influence of the federal government in matters constitutionally left to the states or the people.

And political wannabes are judged not on their core philosophy regarding the duties they wish to assume if elected, but when asked to opine about every little news story that comes down the pike.

This week in Kentucky all four of the top candidates running for the United States Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Jim Bunning, felt compelled to weigh in on Obama's Afghanistan policy, and they did.

That's not really surprising since the midwest delegation in both houses all added their two cents worth by having something to say.  But so what?

Commentary on the President's wartime decisions should be left to us pundits, blog writers, the editorial pages and guys and gals griping about government over coffee and tea.

Oddly enough the one candidate who took the right approach is the one now considered to be out of step, Rand Paul.

Paul correctly said:

 [I]t is Obama’s “prerogative to determine troop levels in time of war.

“It is not the responsibility for Congress to micromanage the orchestration of war,”

Sounding somewhat perplexed by the statement, the Lexington Herald-Leader commented that:

The statement, did not say whether he agrees with Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in coming months.

How odd, they seem to be saying, that Jack Conway, Daniel Mongiardo and Trey Grayson were all willing to share their opinions on the matter but Paul restricted his views with a respectful acknowledgment of the separation of powers.

There's just something about those core values and constitutional oaths that seem so confusing these days. 

Unfortunately that's the shift in politics we've seen over the last 40 years.

Comments

[Tracy Saboe]

They always tried to make it see like Ron Paul's positions on Abortion were a cop-out answer too -- because constitutionally, Murder is a crime charged at the State level.

Did you see this?
Trey Grayson says cutting government spending is a bad move

Currently, in office Trey Grayson is complaining about budget cuts to his department. That doesn't sound very conservative to me. It sounds like Trey actions right now are more in line with a liberal. Or that of a government bureaucrat protecting "his" department.

If Trey Grayson's really a conservative, he should be advocating government spending cuts if anything. Not complaining about them.

[AlternativeCandidate?]

Now your onto the crux of our problems, only don't take that timeframe to heart. This has been going on much longer than the past 40. The "progressives" first emerged in the early 1900's with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. But whatever shaped their idealoge had to have originated prior to their terms in office - so when these unconstitutional tendencies started exactly is difficult to determine.