Why Colleges Don't Teach the Federalist Papers

At America's top schools, graduates leave without reading our most basic writings on the purpose of constitutional self-government.

By PETER BERKOWITZ

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet despite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can't be bothered to require students to study The Federalist—or, worse, they oppose such requirements on moral, political or pedagogical grounds. Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.
The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.
By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages.

The Federalist deals with the reasons for preserving the union, the inefficacy of the existing federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and the conformity of the new constitution to the principles of liberty and consent. It covers war and peace, foreign affairs, commerce, taxation, federalism and the separation of powers. It provides a detailed examination of the chief features of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It advances its case by restatement and refutation of the leading criticisms of the new constitution. It displays a level of learning, political acumen and public-spiritedness to which contemporary scholars, journalists and politicians can but aspire. And to this day it stands as an unsurpassed source of insight into the Constitution's text, structure and purposes.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

The Title Page of the Federalist: a Collection of Essays circa 1787.

At Harvard, at least, all undergraduate political-science majors will receive perfunctory exposure to a few Federalist essays in a mandatory course their sophomore year. But at Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley, political-science majors can receive their degrees without encountering the single surest analysis of the problems that the Constitution was intended to solve and the manner in which it was intended to operate.
Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation's professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist. And these universities' law schools (Princeton has no law school), which produce many of the nation's leading members of the bar and bench, do not require their students to read, let alone master, The Federalist's major ideas and main lines of thought.
Of course, The Federalist is not prohibited reading, so graduates of our leading universities might be reading it on their own. The bigger problem is that the progressive ideology that dominates our universities teaches that The Federalist, like all books written before the day before yesterday, is antiquated and irrelevant.

Particularly in the aftermath of the New Deal, according to the progressive conceit, understanding America's founding and the framing of the Constitution are as useful to dealing with contemporary challenges of government as understanding the horse-and-buggy is to dealing with contemporary challenges of transportation. Instead, meeting today's needs requires recognizing that ours is a living constitution that grows and develops with society's evolving norms and exigencies.

Then there's scientism, or enthrallment to method, which collaborates with progressive ideology to marginalize The Federalist, along with much of the best that has been thought and said in the West. Political science has corrupted a laudable commitment to the systematic study of politics by transforming it into a crusading devotion to the refinement of method for method's sake. In the misguided quest to mold political science to the shape of the natural sciences, many scholars disdainfully dismiss The Federalist—indeed, all works of ideas—as mere journalism or literary studies which, lacking scientific rigor, can't yield genuine knowledge.

And thus so many of our leading opinion formers and policy makers seem to come unhinged when they encounter constitutional arguments apparently foreign to them but well-rooted in constitutional text, structure and history. These include arguments about, say, the unitary executive; or the priority of protecting political speech of all sorts; or the imperative to articulate a principle that keeps the Constitution's commerce clause from becoming the vehicle by which a federal government—whose powers, as Madison put it in Federalist 45, are "few and defined"—is remade into one of limitless unenumerated powers.

By robbing students of the chance to acquire a truly liberal education, our universities also deprive the nation of a citizenry well-acquainted with our Constitution's enduring principles.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577380383026226256.html

Are You a Hero or a Bystander?

 a most enlightening read.........

Who Is Likely to Step Up or Freeze Up in a Crisis; Research Identifies Prime Traits

 Wall Street Journal
August 21, 2012

We all wonder how we would react in an emergency. Would we risk our lives to help someone in danger?

Laurie Ann Eldridge found out last year. Looking up from her garden one evening at her Cameron, N.Y., home, Ms. Eldridge saw a confused 81-year-old driver stuck at a railroad crossing nearby, oblivious to the train speeding toward her car.

In an era when heroism generally is declining, as measured by a drop in heroism awards granted in several nations, many of us wonder what we would do in similar circumstances. Sue Shellenbarger on Lunch Break shows us tools for figuring out your own heroism quotient. Photo: Gabriella Bass.

Ms. Eldridge raced barefoot to the car, wrestled out the disoriented woman, rolled with her down the railway embankment and covered her with her body, just seconds before the train demolished the automobile. Ms. Eldridge's feet were bloody and riddled with splinters. The elderly woman, Angeline C. Pascucci of Le Roy, N.Y., was unhurt.
It is hard to know for sure who will step up and who will freeze up in a crisis. But, amid growing interest in positive psychology, the study of human strengths and virtues, research in recent years has shed light on the qualities and attitudes that distinguish heroes from the rest of us.

Certain traits make it more likely that a person will make a split-second decision to take a heroic risk. People who like to take charge of situations, who respond sympathetically to others, and who have a strong sense of moral and social responsibility are more likely to intervene than people who lack those traits, research shows. Heroes tend by nature to be hopeful, believing events will turn out well. They consciously try to keep fear from hampering their pursuit of goals, and they tend to block out the possibility of injury or material loss.

People who are otherwise good and caring may still shrink back in a crisis. Their responses depend partly on whether they perceive the situation as an emergency and whether they know how to help; someone who doesn't know anything about electrical wiring probably won't rush to save a person tangled in a power line. How you're feeling that day makes a difference, too; "people who are in a good mood are more likely to help," says Julie M. Hupp, an assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University in Newark. Context also matters; some researchers say a large crowd makes it less likely that an individual hero will step up.
Of course, it helps to be physically able. In a 1981 study of 32 people who had intervened to help victims of assaults, robberies or other serious crimes, researchers found the heroes were taller, heavier and more likely to have had training in rescuing people or responding to emergencies than a comparison group of people who hadn't intervened in a crime or emergency for 10 years.
But heroism is far more complex than that. Some heroes have qualities that enable them to blast through obstacles, recent research shows. Empathy, or care or concern for others, runs high in people with heroic tendencies, according to a 2009 study led by Sara Staats, a professor emeritus of psychology at Ohio State University in Newark.

Ms. Eldridge was an unlikely hero. She had no rescue training. At 5-foot-8 and 115 pounds, she was outweighed by the woman she saved. The biggest surprise to Ms. Eldridge, a single mother of two teenage boys, was that she was able to run at all. Until the day of the rescue, she hadn't run for 10 years because of a disabling back injury.
"All I could think about was the lady's face. She looked lost. She needed help, and she needed help right then," says Ms. Eldridge, who received a medal from the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission, which honors civilians who risk their lives to save others, last June.

How to Raise a Hero

A tendency to frame events positively and expect good outcomes is another hallmark of heroes, says Jeremy Frimer, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Winnipeg. In a 2010 study, 25 Canadians who had won awards for risking their lives to save others were asked to tell stories about their lives. Heroes were more likely to "take something that's bad and turn it into something that's good," says Dr. Frimer, a co-author of the study with Lawrence Walker, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia, and others. In an example from another study, Dr. Frimer says, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer described the disease as "re-energizing her creative side," saying her return to creating art was "a gift that came from the tragedy.'"

Heroes tend by nature to be hopeful, believing events will turn out well.

When Stephen St. Bernard came home from work last month to his Brooklyn, N.Y., apartment building, neighbors had gathered outside. A 7-year-old child had squeezed out of her family's third-floor apartment window and was dancing on the air-conditioning unit outside, some 25 feet above the pavement.
All Mr. St. Bernard was thinking, he says, was "maybe I can catch her," says the 53-year-old bus driver for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. "The weight of the child, how hard she was going to hit me—none of that crossed my mind," he says. "I was just hoping, praying, 'God, please don't let me miss.'"
As he moved beneath the window, the girl slipped and plummeted into his outstretched arms with an estimated 600 pounds of force, nearly ripping his arm off. He has had surgery to repair the torn muscles, tendons and nerves and will need months of painful physical therapy. But in describing the incident, he focuses on the fact that the child escaped injury or death. "Not a scratch was on that baby," he says.
Heroic people also tend to have a strong sense of ethics and above-average coping skills—a belief in their ability to tackle challenges and beat the odds, research shows. On the battlefield in Afghanistan last January, Navy nurse James Gennari knew, when he saw an injured Marine arrive on a stretcher at his medical facility, that standard procedures wouldn't work. The Marine had a live rocket-propelled grenade embedded in his body, from his thigh through his buttocks. A surgeon told Lt. Cmdr. Gennari he didn't have to intervene; a bomb squad could remove the grenade.
But Lt. Cmdr. Gennari stepped up to the stretcher, took the Marine's hand and told him, "I promise you, no matter what, I won't leave you until that thing is out of your leg,' " Lt. Cmdr. Gennari says. He administered a sedative so an explosives specialist could pull out the bomb. It was later detonated in a huge blast outside the base. Lt. Cmdr. Gennari kept the Marine alive by pumping a manual respirator during a power failure on a helicopter flight to another camp. He was awarded a Bronze Star for valor this month.
Values that inspire heroism are often taught in childhood; "children who grew up watching their parents stick their necks out for others, are likely to do the same," says Dr. Hupp.
Lt. Cmdr. Gennari says his parents taught him "that every good thing that happens to you is a blessing, and you're supposed to give back." His father Gilbert, a Staff Sergeant in the Army who won a Bronze Star in the Korean War for meritorious service, taught him that "a man's word is a measure of his character," he adds. Thus when he gave the Marine his word that he wouldn't leave him, he says, "that was the way it was going to be."

VIDEO: Paul Ryan took apart Obama and Obamacare -- in 6 minutes!

"Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending. This bill does not control costs, this bill does not control deficits". PR. 

Some pertinent links: 
cbo-to-employers-obamacare-has-4b-more-in-taxes-than-expected/article/2503013#.UCe8pKNTGSp

obamacare-by-the-numbers/

report-canadian-health-care-spending-unsustainable/       http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/canadas-medicare-bubble.pdf

and then a model we can learn from, free market based yet compulsory, but not government centered or controlled!

http://www.npr.org/series/91971170/germany-health-care-for-all

 

Words of wisdom to remember

A lighthearted intermezzo

The Reagan in Romney

 

 

 

 

 

 

Larry Kudlow

While some of my conservative colleagues are criticizing the Romney campaign for one thing or another, I want to make a distinct point that is largely being overlooked: Mitt Romney is the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan.

 

Looking back through his speeches, interviews, and programmatic proposals, I see an emphasis on economic freedom, free enterprise, low tax rates, deep federal spending cuts, and free trade, and a free-market approach to tough social problems, such as health care, education, and poverty. Meaning no disrespect to George W. Bush, John McCain, Robert Dole, and George H. W. Bush, not one of these former Republican leaders was the consistent and comprehensive free-market advocate that Romney has been.

 

A few recent examples help illustrate my point.

 

Following his trip to Israel, Romney released an essay called “Culture Does Matter,” which was printed on National Review Online. In it, he strongly defended his statement that culture plays a key role in creating prosperity.

 

Romney wrote that “one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.” He added that “economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty . . . the only principle that has ever created sustained prosperity.”

 

The last Republican leader to talk specifically in those terms? Ronald Reagan.

 

And when Romney walked into the NAACP lion’s den in July, he told the crowd: “Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class.” He was booed at the beginning of that speech when he opposed Obamacare. But he received a standing ovation at the end, once people heard his overall philosophy.

 

I recently asked the former governor about Obama’s now-infamous “you didn’t build that” statement. Romney blasted it by saying, “This is an ideology which says, ‘Hey, we’re all the same here, we oughta take from all and give to one another,’ and that achievement, individual initiative, risk-taking, and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past.” He called it an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. The language is clearly Reagan-like.

 

Programmatically, Columbia Business School dean and top Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard recently laid out the specific Romney economic plan. (Undoubtedly, the Romney campaign crossed every “t” and dotted every “i.”) The plan would lower the spending share of GDP to 20 percent from 24 percent by 2016, which is probably the largest proposed spending cut ever. The cumulative net savings of that cut could be a whopping $1.8 trillion, which not only would finance huge deficit reduction, but also would help pay for Romney’s pro-growth tax reform: a supply-side, across-the-board 20 percent personal-tax-rate reduction, a limit or end to various tax deductions for upper-income payers, and a dramatically reduced corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent -- perhaps the most powerful growth stimulant of all. Rounding out the economic program is a regulatory rollback, entitlement, trade, education, and energy reform, and a sound monetary policy (replacing Ben Bernanke at the Fed).

 

The liberal Brookings Institute seized on the tax portion of this plan, arguing that revenue neutrality would force Romney to end deductions and raise taxes on the middle class. Nonsense. That analysis completely misses the massive spending-reduction in the overall package, along with growth incentives for everyone and base-broadeners only for the upper brackets.

 

And according to Hubbard, Team Romney believes this pro-growth economic plan would generate 4 percent annual  growth and create 12 million new jobs in a first term.

 

So Romney has set specific policies and connected them to specific, positive economic results. He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth. And he backs this up with an unmistakable philosophy of economic freedom. It’s the backbone of his thinking, and it connects to policies that will restore American prosperity.

 

Now, I’m willing to concede that Romney’s message has not been refined enough for the public at large. In particular, I would prefer that he harp on the word “growth” far more than he does. And he will probably have to winnow his key points even more (though he has brought them down from 59 to five).

 

So there’s more work to do before the big convention speech. But to suggest that Mitt Romney is not an economic conservative makes no sense to me. Look at what he’s saying. And look at what he’s proposing. And then think of Reagan.

 Source: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/2012/08/10/the_reagan_in_romney

Did the 2009 stimulus really perform just as Team Obama expected?

James Pethokoukis | July 13, 2012, 11:29 am

I, and others, have given the Obama administration a lot of flak for its early 2009 prediction that its $800 billion stimulus plan would drive the unemployment rate to under 6% by 2012. The fact that unemployment is over 8% might lead one to conclude that those fancy economic models with their Keynesian multipliers were wrong.
But Obama supporters defend the forecast by arguing that White House economists were basing that prediction on incomplete numbers that didn’t reflect the true severity of the downturn. Once the data were revised, White House economists seemingly made more accurate predictions.
For instance, here’s what former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee tweeted the other day when the June jobless report — which showed an 8.2% unemployment rate — was released:

Indeed, you can find that forecast in the 2010 Economic Report of the President. And, I guess, we should conclude from that accurate CEA forecast that the $800 billion stimulus really did perform pretty much as expected, right? The White House predicted 8.2% and that is exactly what we got. Score one for Keynes — and the idea the stimulus should have been larger.

But here’s your trouble: In that report, the Council of Economic Advisers also predicted that the U.S. economy would grow by 4.3% in both 2011 and 2012. Instead, the economy grew by 1.7% in 2011 and might not do much better this year — if not worse. (First quarter GDP expanded at 1.9%, and many economists see the second quarter also sub-2%.) As a result, we have a $13.3 trillion economy instead of the $14.3 trillion economy Team Obama predicted (looking at just the underperformance in 2011 and 2012).

And here’s the puzzle: How can GDP growth be less than half of what Team Obama predicted in 2010 for 2011 and 2012, while the unemployment rate is exactly what Team Obama predicted? Less growth should have produced at least a somewhat higher unemployment rate, right?

The answer is almost certainly that White House economists didn’t expect a shockingly sharp drop in the labor force participation rate since they didn’t expect GDP growth to be so miserable. The size of the active workforce as a share of the total population fell from 64.5% in November of 2010 to 63.8% last month even as the economy was slowly expanding.

If Obama economists had known the economic recovery would be so weak the past two years, they might have expected a much, much higher unemployment rate. In November of 2010, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the labor force participation rate would be roughly 65.5% in 2012, even though it saw GDP growth of 1.9% in 2011, accelerating after that. Everything else being equal, a participation rate that high today would translate into a 2012 unemployment rate of 10.6%.

But the impact of such a weak recovery has resulted in a historically weak labor market where so many folks have given up that it has driven the official unemployment rate to 8.2% rather than 10.6%.

Bottom line: The $800 billion stimulus does not seem to have produced the sort of economic growth — less than 2% instead of over 4% — that was predicted, raising serious question about whether another round should be tried, as the White House and some left-of-center economics contend.

Source:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/did-the-2009-stimulus-really-perform-just-as-team-obama-expected/