In re-reading this post by @John Farley, I realize he is right: there was a real danger that someone might read that (single) sentence and dismiss everything that followed. That is regrettable.When I see this kind of obviously partisan, ideological messaging entering the discussion, it just turns me off to the whole thing. (And no doubt, many others.) *snip*
The admittedly-glib preamble, complete with a humorous footnote, was intended to ameliorate a stern warning: that H.R. 6450, in its current form, represents a threat to the liberty of the people. But, this is nothing more than a modern restatement, specific to the bill, of the 1787 Anti-Federalist position that a strong central government threatens tyranny and loss of liberty.
If anyone disagrees with that warning, congratulations! You have taken a Federalist position. Rather than be offended by that, I think you should be proud: you are in good company. Stand up and explain why you think H. R. 6450 is no threat, regardless of which political party is in power. Debates can only generate information.
Look: the debate over the proper role of government--whether concentrating power and authority in a strong central government is a good thing--is as old as government itself. It has divided this country since before our formation; indeed, throughout history that debate has divided every country and every people who have ever engaged in it.
The debate played a part in the destruction of the Weimar Republic, with the German Right-Wing hating Germany’s newly-formed constitutional republic, and wishing for a return to an authoritarian form of government. By contrast, the German Left-Wing embraced the Weimar Constitution and the new government it created.
H. R. 6450 will pass or it will not, and the Federalist Question will overshadow much of the debate over the bill. At least: I hope it will. Even though I think @Mike Smith will be successful and the bill will be suitably-amended, I think a debate over the proper role of government cannot be avoided.
I also hope I have made it clear that such debate is natural to self-government. But by all means let’s have that debate: rather than be offended by the contrarian point of view, take the opportunity to get your point across.
A final point: over a decade ago a NJ conservative realized that most of his neighbors in Mercer County might not know what it really means to be conservative. He proposed an op-ed to the Trenton Times in the hope of explaining one way of viewing conservatism. (It was also an indirect defense of President Obama, who was still being criticized for correctly pointing out that the U.S. Constitution is “a document of negative liberties.”)
I now worry that @John Farley was correct, and those who read the title, Liberty, Federalism, and the Conservative Statesman, simply turned the page and moved on.