Advancing Individual Rights

Consider the following two scenarios:

You walk in the schoolhouse door, seeking admission for your child. The Administrator meets you with a snarl: "We don’t take people of your race here. Get out."

You walk in the schoolhouse door, seeking admission for your child. The Administrator meets you with a smile: "I’m sorry. We already have too many people of your race here. Please go away."

Appreciate the difference?

To the Left, the first example – at least if the victim comes from a Politically Correct, certified minority; all bets are off if the victim is white or, often, Asian – represents an example of invidious discrimination and, hence, violates the Constitution. The second example represents merely an effort to achieve "diversity" and is, hence, ‘benign’ and permissible.

Notice, however, that from the perspective of the child, the identity of result; in each case, she finds herself on the curb, excluded from an educational opportunity for no better reason than the color of her skin.

The latter policy represents yet another example of the pernicious ideology of the identity-obsessed Left, which subordinates individual rights to group membership. If individual rights and opportunity must be sacrificed to achieve a "diverse" classroom, so be it. Such is a price that the Left is willing to make a (usually white) child pay.

As a matter of both constitutional law and policy, though, such is self evidence nonsense, as Chief Justice Roberts put it:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

But the Left does not see "civil rights" as rights possessed by individuals, but, rather, rights possessed by groups. Treating children equally and fairly, as individuals, counts for little if, ultimately, the school fails to reflect the politically-correct racial mix. Individual rights must take a back seat to the perceived societal benefits flowing from "diversity".

As Justice Thomas so eloquently wrote, if discrimination against children – assigning them to schools based upon skin color – was wrong in 1954 when the Court decided Brown, it cannot be right today. The Constitution does not morph over time; it remains fixed, constant, knowable. As the lead counsel for plaintiffs in Brown stated:

"We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens. "

If that proposition of law was correct in 1954 – and it was – it remains unassailable today.

Interesting, isn’t it? The advocates of civil rights won that debate. They argued, with passion, that the Constitution forbids taking account of race and – although an academic debate exists over precisely how far the Framers of the 14th Amendment intended to go in banning race-conscious governmental policies – their absolutism prevailed.

Now, the entirely predictable and utterly hysterical editorial by The Times asserts that it’s considered ‘radical’,‘conservative’, and ‘right wing’ to accept precisely the argument advanced by plaintiffs in Brown.

But, actually, such hysteria is entirely consistent with the Left’s view of constitutional law. On occasion, I engage in friendly debate with Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, who avers that the Constitution "lives and breathes", changing – by judicial fiat – when circumstances (read: the Left’s desired policy outcomes) require new, judicially mandated policy. Obviously, not even Brown – iconic thought it might be – is safe. The Left will not permit even Brown to stand in the way of a Politically Correct result. If a fair reading of Brown, and of the position asserted by plaintiffs therein, stands in the way of using race to advance "diversity", Brown must go. And the Left abandoned it with abandon.

Brown held, in no uncertain terms, that denying educational opportunity to a child based upon skin color violated the 14th Amendment. Curious, isn’t it, that the Left should consign Brown to the ash heap of history, all in the name of a "living, breathing" Constitution? Alas, the Left, in a stunning display of revisionism, now asserts that Brown – which asserted an individual right to be free of the consequences of official racial classification – can, somehow, justify creating an entirely new class of victims of senseless racial discrimination.

The "diversity" storm troopers champion the asserted benefits of their particular racial utopia every bit as fervently as did the segregationists of old, and they’re wrong – from a policy perspective – for precisely the same reasons. The racial composition of a particular entity makes precisely no (official) difference. The assertion, for instance, that Blacks can’t learn unless sitting next to whites is so patently insulting as to merit no response. (How do kids in Africa manage?) It’s of no more concern that the entire debating club is white than it is that the entire basketball team is black. Or vice versa. Provided that the kids are treated as individuals, the ethnicity of their classmates matters not one whit.

Groupthink runs squarely up against traditional liberal (and, here, I use that word with great respect) values. The civil rights advocates of old understood one thing perfectly: racial discrimination is NEVER "benign" and ALWAYS victimizes someone. The plurality, yesterday, took a giant step toward reaffirming the expressed view of the Brown plaintiffs, that government must NEVER take account of race. It did so not by changing the Constitution to serve "conservative" policy ends, but by reading the document and respecting precedent. It acted as a Court should act, respecting the Constitution as it exists, not as the Justices might wish it to be.

In Defense of Anti-democracy

Having merited mention on Bluejersey.com for some commentary respecting the electoral college/direct election of the President, I feel compelled to offer a few thoughts.

There exists a certain facial appeal to the suggestion that the candidate who secures the most popular votes ought to be elected President. The electoral college embodies certain anti-democratic elements, such that a candidate, wildly popular in certain states, but relatively unpopular in others, can find himself winning the popular vote, but nonetheless losing the election.

And, given modern electoral techniques, only a few states – swing states – merit much in the way of campaigns. A Republican would be a fool to waste a lot of time in California or New York; the people are essentially beyond hope. Just so, a Democrat would be nuts to spend much time in (say) Texas. The people there tend to reject Hillary-style "we’re-all-in-together-and-you’re-gonna-pay-for-it-whether-you-like-it-or-not" programs. States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, which might break either way – thereby deciding the election – understandably attract the most attention.

The BlueGuys lament this fact, averring that campaigns might be more democratic – or, at least, more diffuse -- if the election were strictly based upon the popular vote count. But such is not necessarily true. Candidates would simply concentrate their efforts on their base – geographic or ideological – attempting to turn out as many of their people as possible. Democrats would, instead of campaigning hard in "swing", but relatively small, states, would direct their attention to their urban, coastal base. Republicans, contrariwise, would direct their attention to their suburban/rural, culturally conservative base. What would change?

For those living in the tristate area, we might see quite a few more Hillary/Obama commercials, but the Republicans would probably continue to ignore the area; it’s not worth the effort when the region is beset by people who read The New York Times editorial section for other than comic relief. There would still be no "national" campaign; at best, the focus of the candidates’ attention might be somewhat diverted.

Anti-democratic tools are not inherently evil. Indeed, our system fairly bursts at the seams with them. Consider, for instance, the Mother of all anti-democratic institutions: the Judiciary. Judicial supremacy is not a given. Indeed, in England, Parliament is supreme. How does permitting a committee of ancient lawyers to make important decisions square with democracy? For instance, should not the voters of Massachusetts (or NJ) been given the opportunity to vote on whether the State would permit gay marriage? If one believes in direct democracy, why not on issues such as that as well?

And unless one accepts that New Jersey should enjoy precisely the same representation in the Senate as does California on the one hand or Wyoming on the other, one is a confirmed anti-democrat. Indeed, districts themselves produce anti-democratic results. In the last legislative election, Republican legislative candidates received more votes statewide than did their Democratic counterparts, but the Dems won a 49-31 majority. Over the years prior to 1994, Republicans routinely earned more congressional votes nationally than did the Dems, yet the latter retained consistent Congressional majorities.

Query, then: why the concern about a "minority" president, but no similar concern about numerous "minority" legislators? Why, essentially, abolish the states for the purpose of electing the President, but retain them for the purpose of electing Congressional representatives? After all, NJ Republicans utterly lack representation in the US Senate; would not a parliamentary system be "fairer", encouraging folks whose own states might be beyond redemption – as in NJ – to cast meaningful votes for his/her party, ensuring that every vote actually helps elect candidates in proportion to the national percentage of the vote? Or effect the same system for the NJ Legislature?

Well, no. Districts serve a useful purpose. Normally, the folks who represent them reside therein and understand their unique concerns. States, too, exist for a purpose, and the political culture differs markedly, even between adjacent states. We broke away from England for a reason.

The president should have broad appeal, across the nation, not just in a few populace states. Just as Montana receives – as a state – the same number of Senators as California, so, too, it deserves to have its interests considered in the race for President. If its voters get somewhat disproportionate weight in Presidential elections – and in the Senate – such is precisely the result the Framers intended. They did not want the parochial concerns of the big states to permit them to dominate the new nation. That concern prevails today, in spades.

Consider also the practical difficulties associated with a close national election. The electoral college tends to overstate the margins of the winners, thereby negating bruising, post electoral court battles. Imagine if EVERY district in the nation were akin to Broward County in 2000. Under the present system, it’s generally not worth the time and effort to litigate every possible disputed vote in every single district. Nor is it necessary. But imagine the rule by lawyers – and judges – if EVERY precinct throughout the country were held to Morris Township standards. (Where each and every vote became the subject of judicial scrutiny). In a close national election, EVERY single precinct in the nation might end up in Court. We might be years determining a – judicially approved – winner.

If you think Bush v. Gore problematic, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Now, a national popular vote might produce some salutary results, such as strong voter ID laws to prevent cheating. (Although not widespread, in a close election, even a few fraudulently cast ballots make a considerable difference). It’s unlikely to increase turnout; folks who don’t vote for President today likely wouldn’t in any case. And it won’t produce less focused campaigns; at most, it would change the focus.

Direct popular election of the President is most certainly not fundamentally offensive. But for those who believe it to be a panacea, think again. For every "solution", three more problems arise. Put another way, the system is not, self-evidently broken. We should not lightly disregard the Framers’ design, as it’s worked pretty well over the course of 216 years or so.

Welcoming New Americans

Conventional wisdom holds that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Immigration policy certainly demonstrates the accuracy of that observation.

Pity the poor liberal Democrats, forced to confront this issue, which pits their identity-politics allies – one’s race, sex, ethnicity, and bedroom antics are more important than one’s qualifications or philosophy – against their staunch, labor union allies. Indeed, it creates substantial rifts within the ethnic-bean-counter ranks as well, as blacks often consider immigration problematic, as it creates more competitors for (relatively) scarce jobs.

Conservatives, on the other hand, face no such conflict, as – devotees, first and foremost, to the rule of law – they find it impossible to get beyond the word "illegal" in the phrase "illegal immigrant". Simply put, conservatives aver that however beneficial immigration might be (and, obviously, folks disagree), lawbreaking cannot be tolerated, let alone rewarded. Liberals never display much patience for rules and process, if same stand in the way of achieving a "good" result. Hence, they rarely even employ the word "illegal", preferring to lump all immigrants together, whether they arrived here through the appropriate channels or snuck in.

With the death of the amnesty-by-another-name proposal, serious advocates of immigration reform need to discuss how to address the subject for the future.

Wall building resonates mightily with the "secure the border" crowd, but – in the opinion of this fiscal conservative – it represents an unwarranted expenditure of scarce public resources, a mere physical manifestation of a political gesture. Walls will cost a bloody fortune and will probably do little to stem the tide of illegals, as they do precisely zip about the incentives to come here in the first instance.

Which is to say: money.

In 1986, the last time we ventured down the amnesty road, Congress promised that employer sanctions would obviate the possibility of future illegals flouting the law for precisely the same reasons motivating their newly pardoned cousins. But those sanctions proved wholly illusory; very few businesses ever face prosecution, and when was the last time you read of a local prosecution for hiring an illegal as a nanny or a housekeeper?

Save the money on barriers; hit the folks who employ illegals. HARD. $10,000 for each offense, no exceptions. Offer a bounty to anyone who squeals – one half of the fine money. Make it illegal for any municipality or state to offer ANY services to illegals, (except, of course, humanitarian medical care). Depending upon how one interprets the relevant provision of the 14th Amendment, pass legislation or amend the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.

In other words, get SERIOUS and start treating this massive trespass as the expensive crime it is. Harsh? Perhaps. But the solution to a crime needs to be sufficiently harsh to deter folks from committing it.

Likely, the result would be that we need not actually deport more than a few folks. People here illegally, faced with unemployment, would voluntarily leave.

And, when they do, we should IMMEDIATELY invite them to apply to return.

Consider: what would it take for you to pick up and leave your home, your family, your friends – everything you’ve ever known and loved – and sally forth to a distant land, full of strange customs, an incomprehensible language, and – perhaps – the risk of criminal sanction simply for working?

The sort of person willing to take that risk for the opportunity to work for a living represents PRECISELY the sort of person we should welcome into this country with open arms. They’re natural Republicans (even if they don’t – yet – know it), as they essentially reject the Leftist notion of getting something for nothing.

America should happily welcome many immigrants, but with one proviso: you’re (officially) on your own.

America is a land or opportunity, not guarantees (a philosophy not a few citizens could better take to heart). Those of us already here are more than happy to welcome new arrivals, provided they don’t ask us to subsidize the trip. No freebies; to the extent that we choose to have government fund such programs at all, we reserve them for citizens. No welfare. No public education. Nada.

If, after seven years or so, you wish to remain, have learned the language, some history, and understand that the only requirement for being an American is devotion to freedom – and a willingness to fight for it if necessary – then, in that case, you’re as good an American as the descendants of those who came over on the Mayflower. Pull up a chair.

And of your ethnic heritage, be as proud as you want. March in parades. Open ethnic restaurants. Celebrate World Cup Soccer victories for your erstwhile homeland.

But, remember, you’re an AMERICAN now; no hyphen. Expect no ballots or official governmental publications in your native tongue. Expect no special treatment on account of your heritage – nor any official recognition. Here, we are one people, not many peoples. A multiethnic nation, not a multicultural land.

Put another way, immigration policy ought to be centered around creating new Americans. We should welcome – and we can use – these new people, provided that they understand that, in America, while we’re all in this experiment together, you’re on your own and have absolutely no right to demand anything from anyone else, beyond simple respect of your right to be left alone.

It’s not too much for present Americans to ask that those who wish to join us play by certain basic rules, and to deal harshly with those who refuse, however admirable their pluck. We should welcome new -- legal -- immigrants, but should not be expected to underwrite their arrival.

Hail to the (New) Chief

The presumptive appointment of Stuart Rabner as Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court provoked a Ledger Editorial, together with a news story, and coincided with a Op-Ed piece by erstwhile Justice Peter Veniero, all meriting discussion.

The editorial commences with a paean to our esteemed Supreme Court as "... one of the nation’s best and most progressive, partly as a result of its landmark decisions on important issues ranging from affordable housing to improving impoverished schools." In this one sentence, the Ledger sums up just about everything which is wrong with the Court.

Far from being hailed as one of the nation’s best Courts, most commentators who care about the appropriate role of the judiciary condemn it as among the worst -- despite stiff competition from Florida and Nevada -- a perennial embarrassment. The Ledger happens to agree with the results at which the Court arrived and, therefore, despite the fact that neither Mount Laurel nor Abbott – the decisions to which the editorial refers – have the slightest basis in the actual New Jersey Constitution, they applaud the Court for its willingness to impose its view of proper policy upon an unwilling populace.

As a matter of policy, the "progressive" decisions at which the Court arrived have been essentially unmitigated disasters, as almost all "progressive" policies are. In Mount Laurel, the Court proclaimed that we should let 10,000 condo complexes bloom, with the result that suburban sprawl exploded. Abbott produced a system of constitutionally untouchable, hugely expensive public schools which fail to educate children at massive public expense, as opposed to their predecessors, which failed to educate children at merely great public expense. These decisions, together, make property tax relief essentially impossible. The related judicially ukase -- to expend billions constructing urban public schools – produced entirely predictable fraud, indebted the state up the wazu (without the constitutionally requisite public referendum) and contributed to making NJ the worst tax hell in the US, with no relief in sight.

Indeed, the very assertion, that a "good" Court can be "progressive" stands as the very definition of a judicial oxymoron. Judges approaching cases with a view toward imposing "progressive" mandates are, by definition, violating their oaths of office. Courts exist to interpret the language of statutes or constitutional provisions, not to reinvent them in a "progressive" image. When a Court reads into a 60 year old document a "right" to gay "civil unions" or marriage, it is acting not as a judicial tribunal, but as a Ruling Council, imposing mandates, not interpreting the Constitution. Any putative judge who asserts that the judicial power includes the right to ignore the intentions of the people who framed and adopted the document, in favor of "progressive" reinterpretation of language, should be denied appointment or, if in office, expeditiously removed.

The difference between "conservatives" and "progressives", judicially, lies in the fact that progressives care only about results. If – say – abortion on demand is "correct" policy, whether one imposes that policy legislatively or judicially matters absolutely not all. Progressive judge Roe not by its intellectual or jurisprudential merits – of which, none exist – but upon the desirability of the outcome. Good result = good decision. End of question.

"Conservatives", contrariwise, actually care about process. An example: assume that instead of a "progressive" Court, NJ enjoyed an activist, "conservative" Court when Abbott came before it. Noting the failure of the urban public schools to deliver a decent education, said "conservative" Court Ordered the Legislature to fund equal vouchers for every student in the state.

The results of such an Order would be wonderful. Parents would instantly enjoy broad educational choice; numerous new schools would open, of every possible stripe, providing a huge smorgasbord of educational choices. Property taxes would drop by at least half throughout the state. Costs would decline precipitously. The NJEA would become an historical anachronism, its political power gone. Instead of fleeing the state, people would clamor to move in.

But the Left – which cares about government, not kids – would produce an instantaneous litter of full grown calves, for, to them, parental choice ends at birth. And, in this particular case, they’d be right. Not on the merits, of course; any rationale policymaker would choose vouchers over the present system in a New York minute. But no Court, anywhere, possesses the power to impose even such a magnificent policy upon the Legislature.

Any prospective judge who can’t distinguish between his own policy predilections and constitutional writ needs to seek a new line of work. Take, for instance, Lawrence v. Texas, the case which concluded that state criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior run afoul of the Constitution. A wonderful result, in the opinion of this libertarian; the State should not possess the power to tell adults how to act, sexually, behind closed doors. But a decision, however desirable the result, completely and totally without textual support in the Constitution. And, hence, totally illegitimate, however pleasing the result.

For the Left, a case must always be decided the "right" way, in the sense of imposing the Left’s view of propriety. Which is why leftists, generally, should never be permitted to serve as judges. They simply can’t fathom that there might be a difference between "doing that which (they believe) to be right" and doing that which the Constitution compels.

The Ledger news story about Rabner mentions that, previously, he sought a Superior Court judgship in Essex County, but his political mentor – no less a personage than Senate President Richard Codey – couldn’t pull it off. Concerns about "ethnic diversity ... worked against a white Jewish man..."

Now, consider: here is a man the Ledger praises as an "Impressive Pick" to serve as the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, who found himself disqualified from a Superior Court judgship because he was the wrong sex, race, and religion.

If ever a story pointed up the absolute poison of the "diversity" industry, this should be it. Assertedly exemplary candidates merit no consideration, because qualifications come in a poor second to accidents of birth. Turn "he" into a "she", or transform this "white" into a "black", and teh nomination follows as a matter of course. Instead, presumably lesser qualified people received those appointments on account of their race or sex. (If they were not lesser qualified, why are they not the choice for Chief instead of Rabner?)

Justice Verniero's column mostly deals with perceived threats against judges – either physical or to their "independence" – but it merits a few comments.

First, he notes that courts only decide the cases brought before them. True, that, but given that litigants present essentially every societal issue to judges, that constitutes small comfort to those who favor rule by elected officials, not appointed judges.

Second, he notes that when Judges make mistakes, they're subject to correction. Again, true in theory. But, in practice, such is another matter.

"Conservative" objections to judicial decisions arise less from the possibility that judges make mistakes, but from the well-founded, amply documented contention that judges don’t understand their jobs. It is certainly possible to get a decision wrong inadvertently; it is quite another to deliberately ignore the text and history of a statute or of the constitution to arrive at the "right" result. "Conservatives" don’t mind occasional, correctable "mistakes", but they object strongly – and correctly so – to repeated, deliberate abuses of power.

In NJ, examples of such judicial misbehavior abound, but take just two: the Court read the time limit to replace candidates out of the law in the Torricelli case and judicial removal of the Constitutional provision against dividing municipalities into more than two legislative districts from the document. In neither case was there the slightest doubt about the language of the relevant provision, but the Court disliked the results fealty to the language would produce, so it ignored the law. What’s the point of writing statutes, or drafting constitutions, if the Court simply does what if bloody well pleases?

Veniero errs when he avers that the vitriol quite properly directed at the Courts for these absurd decisions "... undermines the legitimacy of the court system". Rather, the decisions themselves, coupled with the arrogance of judges who assert the right to impose their will rather than render their judgment, undermines popular faith in the impartiality of the Courts

Veniero seems to forget that every idiotic decision benefits someone – often, very powerful someones – who can prevent the political system from correcting inexcusable, but profitable decisions. The Court got the Torricelli decision wrong; everyone admits that. But the Dems, in control of the Legislature, were hardly in a hurry to rebuff the Court which had just delivered a Senate seat into their laps. They didn’t care about the law, they cared about power.

The simple solution to Judges’ objections to being treated like politicians? Stop acting like politicians. Leave policy-making to the Legislature. A judge who believes we should spend more on urban schools, or build more low income house, is privileged to vote for legislative candidates who share that perspective. But she is not empowered to torture the Constitution into compelling those particular results, simply because the Educational Law Center or the NAACP brought a suit asking for that relief.

Perhaps, then, the best that can be said for the Rabner appointment is that he can’t possibly be any worse than Wilentz or Poritz. Hardly high praise, but, in New Jersey, searching for some ray of sunshine in these dark times is about the best that any lover of freedom – and respecter of the Rule of Law – can manage.

Our Erstwhile Embarrassment in Chief

For the last few weeks, the Democrats have been making much merry at the prospect of a visit to NJ by President Bush for a GOP fundraiser. They undertook a campaign of asking Republican legislators if they planned to attend, the upshot, of course, being that Republicans should be embarrassed of the President.

Deliciously, the State Dems have now revealed the headliner for the Governor’s gala, none other than the embarrassment-in-Chief, Hizzonor, William Jefferson Clinton.

Bill Clinton boasts not a single ethical bone in his body. He completely and utterly lacks principle. But don’t take my word for it; as a partisan, I can hardly be expected to offer an unbiased assessment. Consider, say Bob Kerrey, who called Bill Clinton an "exceptionally good liar" and who opined to the effect that if one disapproves of Clinton’s position on a particular subject today, don’t worry, because he’ll have a different one tomorrow.

Clinton’s fundraising prowess is legendary – for, among other reasons, that he’s not especially choosy from whence he raises said funds. Just this past week, it was revealed that he took millions in consulting fees – and his wife took hundreds of thousands in "free" travel – from a firm accused of selling personal information about vulnerable seniors to scam artists. In one of his last official acts in power, he pardoned a notorious fugitive tax evader. Never mind that he lost his law license for deliberately lying to investigators (but lying’s OK, even under oath, in sex harassment suits, right?). Indeed, his choice of associates calls his judgment into serious question, with dozens ending up doing time or fleeing the country. He almost makes McGreevey’s merry bunch of profiteers look tame by comparison.

When even Clinton’s friends, like leftist mogul David Geffen, contend that he (and his wife) lie "with such ease, it's troubling", it’s appropriate to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, they know about what they speak.

Certainly, Bush’s policies offer much room for disagreement, mostly from the right. His immigration policy is essentially indistinguishable from that of Ted Kennedy. His spending levels make one yearn for the old days of divided government, when a Republican Congress – perhaps for purely partisan reasons – felt obliged to check Bill Clinton’s preferred excesses. His creation of a wholly unnecessary and massive governmental prescription drug program simply cannot be justified. And – think what one will about the motivation for going to war in the first instance – there seems to be general agreement that, tactically, his administration’s prosecution of that enterprise has been less than exemplary.

The Left describes Clinton’s tenure as one of "peace and prosperity", betraying their typical carelessness with language. Peace? Hmm. Here I was thinking that the definition of "peace" – vis a vis Americans, anyway – is a time in which American forces are not engaged in combat. Perhaps the Left forgets about the engagement in the former Yugoslavia. American forces were in combat for months; hardly sounds like "peace". Not, mind you, that Clinton deserves opprobrium for involving American forces there; far from it. It represented one of the few highlights of his Presidency. (And Republican support for that action – allowing politics to end at the water’s edge – stands in marked contrast to the Democrats’ shameless and disgraceful politicization of such matters)

Prosperity? Well, there, they’ve got me. After a very rough start, in which the economy barely muddled along -- in part due to Clinton's Corzine-McGreevey-like instantaneous breaking of his campaign promise not to raise taxes -- from 1995 through 1999 or so, the economy perked along quite nicely. If the commencement of that "prosperity", in the middle of Clinton’s first term, seems curious, it happens to coincide with the election of a Republican Congress, which passed tax cuts and curtailed the spending desires of Clinton and his wife. Indeed, one can hardly imagine the massive disaster which would have ensued had Clinton actually gotten his wife’s way, and nationalized 1/7 of the economy through an absolutely insane national health insurance proposal.

OK, Presidents get the credit – or the blame – for things which happen on their watch, and the economy, mostly, did rather well. But Clinton did essentially nothing to effect those salutary circumstances. With the exception of retaining Greenspan as fed Chairman, not a single Clinton policy had the slightest positive effect. Welfare reform helped, of course, but Clinton only reluctantly signed it, essentially under duress, having twice vetoed essentially the same bill.

Clinton’s sexual cattiness merits little notice, but query how many other campaigns employed operatives to handle "bimbo eruptions"? But he treated his wife with base contempt. Perhaps only because no one ever expected better of him was his treatment more favorable than that accorded to (say) Bob Livingston.

None of which is to say, incidentally, that I – or many other Republicans – "hated" him. Of course, one can certainly point to excesses – including several investigations of dubious merit – but, mostly, Republicans shook their head and clucked. As President, he called to mind Eric Stratton rather than Abraham Lincoln. Most Republicans wish profoundly that they never heard of Monica Lewinski, never saw a black beret, and never heard of cigars being used that way. They felt duty bound to impeach him, not because they wanted to – everyone realized it was a political non-starter – but because having a confirmed perjurer as the chief law enforcement officer of the country should give anyone indigestion.

But are the Democrats embarrassed by this highly accomplished liar, this consort of crooks, rogues, and rascals? Of course not. Instead, they will mine his massive fundraising capacity to great effect. Republicans charged $300 to sit with the sitting President; the "Party of the People" will charge their Fat Cats $1500 to hobnob with Bill. Just imagine all the common folk who emerge from their limos, gather at the gala, sip champagne out of crystal flutes, and nibble caviar, crediting Bill with creating a national economic boom for which he bears absolutely no responsibility, while consorting with the architects of unparalleled economic disaster in NJ.

Clinton, bless him, was essentially irrelevant for the last six years of his presidency. Facing Republican majorities, he could do little harm. Not so the Trenton Democrats. The folks who gather to rake in megadollars will be the scriveners of the most disgraceful tax system in the county; of borrowing so egregiously illegal that even a sympathetic Supreme Court couldn’t stomach it; of spending on a scale so massive as to defy imagination. The Trenton Democrats, who make "political ethics" an oxymoron and who have presided over a 40% increase in property taxes, about which they have done precisely zip.

But, as with their beloved ex-President, the Trenton Democrats are impossible to shame. To them, it’s not about policy, it’s about power. And money. Shame is a problem for those who believe honesty matters, for those with principles. For the Clintons and the Trenton Democrats, those are utterly foreign concepts.

They’ll raise a whole lot of vershnagels from those who truly believe in Huge Government and from those who work for it. And they’ll probably keep their Legislative majorities for the foreseeable future.

But when the crisis comes – and it will – a whole bunch of freedom-loving NJ ex-pats, observing the carnage from PA, FL, NC, and other more freedom-loving locals, will look back at their former home, smile sadly, shake their heads, and observe: "what did you expect when you elect people who think Bill Clinton was a good president"?