Shock: ‘The Progressive Professor’ Opposes Nullification

A very predictable progressive, I might add. Once in a while a progressive, like Jeff Taylor at Jacksonville State, realizes that gigantic, unresponsive bureaucracies that bomb foreign populations at the drop of a hat, just might — might! — not be so progressive. And that the old progressive slogan “small is beautiful” just might apply to the political order as well.

But then there are the Predictable Progressives, who stick to the 3×5 card of allowable opinion, and trot out all the old arguments. Half the time they’re not even arguments. It’s just, “Hey, this is an old idea! That means it’s stupid. Today we’re so much more sophisticated. The modern state has showered the world with so many blessings; what kind of uppity troublemaker could ever want to challenge it?”

Hence the “Progressive Professor,” who teaches at Florida Atlantic University, has a blog post called “Rand Paul Revives Nullification from the Pre-Civil War Years.” He writes:

By bringing up “nullification,” [Paul] is forgetting that the Civil War was fought over precisely that issue, the concept of states rights, that a state could nullify laws or actions of the federal government. And that viewpoint lost the war!

Rand Paul is not “forgetting” the Civil War, obviously, so that snide comment serves no purpose. The Civil War was not fought over nullification; in fact, South Carolina complained about nullification in its ordinance of secession, and Jefferson Davis condemned it in his farewell speech to the U.S. Senate. The war was indeed fought over the concept of state sovereignty, but it is obviously correct that the peoples of the states were sovereign. I have covered this. I am waiting for someone to refute me. Maybe the Progressive Professor will try. Probably not.

The Progressive Professor thinks war settles constitutional and moral questions. The state sovereignty position lost the war, so it has no place in our awesome, nationalist, progressive future. What does the Progressive Professor say when his son comes home from the playground with a bloody nose? “Son, whatever position got you into trouble was obviously wrong and can never be brought up again, since you lost that fight!”

“The Civil war settled this” is the morally grotesque position repeated endlessly in left-wing and neoconservative (note how easily they get along when the chips are down, by the way) denunciations of nullification. But if we were deranged enough to think violence could ever settle an intellectual dispute, we could just as easily say, “John Wilkes Booth settled the issue of presidents who violently put down secession.” And then where would we be?

Again, I have answered these objections in my Nullification FAQ.

Arash

Tom, I always love when you address these clowns on nullification. Thank you.
FarSide.Liberty

“What does the Progressive Professor say when his son comes home from the
playground with a bloody nose? “Son, whatever position got you into
trouble was obviously wrong and can never be brought up again, since you
lost that fight!””

I’ve read a lot of your writings on nullification. To me, this analogy is the simplest, most clear method of demolishing the whole ‘The civil war solved that question’ inanity.

I’m sure you must have said it this way a number of times before, but I must have forgotten.

On the other hand, I’ve had arguments with people who eventually admitted to me that they believe ‘might makes right’. I stopped our discussion at that point, and changed the subject to football.
anon

Rand Paul and particularly his team of advisors/staff like Benton & co will not nullify anything the dems/repubs do! So the progressive professor can stop writing about it. No need to fret on his part – it just won’t happen.

At least not until Rand has a leader or libertarian advisors.
anon

Tom – what is your definition of ‘progressives’ and ‘leftists’ and ‘right’? You use these terms, but is a progressive someone who supports obama or is a progressive with socially liberal beliefs or is Bush-Romney-Cheney team ‘progressive’?
Anonymous

How do you do it, Tom? The “John Wilkes Booth” argument is brilliant!! I can’t wait to “borrow” it in a discussion with some statist. Thanks!
TJ

Dr. Woods, recently I’ve been writing stories like this (http://news.msn.com/politics/texas-lawmaker-drafts-bill-making-any-federal-gun-ban-illegal) about state nullification bills dealing with the 2nd Amendment and have been trying to find legal experts who hold a pro-nullification stance for their perspective to balance out the traditional legal opinion. Do you know anyone in the legal community besides Judge Napolitano who would be a good source for that kind of a story in the future? Any suggestions would be great.
Anonymous

Hey Tom, (and other knowledgeable followers)

I’ve been reading Spooner’s No Treason.. And now, quite honestly, I can’t seem to wrap my head around all the constitutionality/10th amendment/nullification stuff. I haven’t finished No Treason, yet, but it’s argument is already overwhelmingly convincing to me.

Where does Spooner’s argument fit in with all this nullification/10th amendment stuff? Is it just too extreme, or are there flaws in his argument that I have not been introduced to? It just seems to make all this talk a sideshow, while we should be striking root and branch at the foundation itself.. Just my thoughts.
Jim

Regarding the professor’s pre-Civil War jab, isn’t the view that history is continual progress to some vague ideal pretty much Progressivism in a nutshell? I’d think it would be hard for the professor to re-think his Big Progress moments of history like the Civil War. Like many, he’s been on the wrong train for so long, he’s not about to get off at the next station.
Jim

You almost have to think with two minds. One accepts the Constitution as a limiting tool. The other mind realizes it won’t work.

I look at it this way. Imagine if we had an actual, reasonably constitutional government. And the 10th Amendment was taken seriously and utilized by the Supreme Court. And State nullification wasn’t an uncommon idea.

In that fantasy world, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Tom Woods would be laying bricks or hauling lobsters in Mass (hey, it’s an honest living). We’d have so little occasion to encounter the government that libertarian political activism would only be worth the effort to society’s most incorrigible cranks.

As I recall from memory, Spooner is essentially making the argument that government cannot remain limited by law or constitution. He is also making the argument that because you did not sign any constitution, you are not bound by it. He’s pretty much knocking down any concepts of political democracy (republican or otherwise), as well as the idea of an automatic social contract that you were born into. This is much more radical than the founding fathers were, and it seems Spooner has been proven right.

If we were able to limit government with a constitution, it would be a great starting point. Since it can’t remain limited, it’s not a perfect solution. But it’s a lot better than what we’ve got now. Anything that limits government and strengthens individual liberty is a big improvement. I guess you just use the tools that you’ve got.
Thomas D

Yes, this is such an important point, and too often overlooked. Progressivism operates on a premise that’s taken for granted, let alone ever questioned: that the human story is necessarily one of ongoing improvement, headed toward a kind of heaven on earth. Humanity is perfectible with the oversight of wise men. Utopia can be achieved.

It reveals just how embedded Puritanism — and its morphed form, universalism — remains in American intellectual thought. It’s a strain that runs deep (and with all due respect to our host, his alma mater has long been its wellspring). It’s always been dangerous; they loved burning those witches, after all. But it was in the 20th century, when a little Marxism got added and a lot of God got subtracted, that it became absolutely toxic.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rand-Allan/1556451159 Rand Allan

The “Progressive Professor” is preaching the gospel of “Might Makes Right”. This is an immoral line of reasoning and is used to justify every act of violence by a govt.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Rand-Allan/1556451159 Rand Allan

In this case, a “Progressive” is anyone who espouses a preference of big govt centralized control over a smaller govt, decentralized control, and more liberty. In this view, whether you are Republican (right) or Democrat (left) only defines how you want to control the population.
Thomas D

I left a comment there awhile ago on this very point, but it hasn’t shown up yet. I also pointed him toward Tom’s post here, which certainly makes the case more clearly than I’m capable of doing.
jmb

You might want to reach out to Kevin Gutzman, http://www.kevingutzman.com/
Anonymous

It was TWJ’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” that helped me to transform from a neocon apologist to who I am today. Hence, I would recommend this book for the Progressive Professor. I’m an electrical engineer and I get it.

But then again … it might be an act of futility. Trying to teach states rights, nullification, et al to progressives might be like teaching Calculus to chimpanzees. They will hoot, scream, and throw fecal matter you … but they will never get it.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ming-Bucibei/100002890712855 Ming Bucibei

progressive is an old old communist code word for communist!!

Ming Buicbei
wolfe76

Rand Paul is a phony. He will do nothing, worry not pinkos.
Anonymous

He’s about as libertarian as the establishment will tolerate. A small step in the right direction.
Anonymous

Perhaps some non-libertarian states-rights advocate should punch the good professor in the nose to settle this debate?
Anonymous

I would have thought that any rational examination of history would expose an ebb and flow of human potential. Kingdoms come, and kingdoms go, so to speak.
Anonymous

Marx, as well, claimed that expansion was the natural tendency of government. Marx just thought that communism was the logical destination, where Spooner simply calls it tyranny.
Anonymous

Same.
Mary Artemis

This is getting all too political in soap opera form. Simply put, this professor gave no real or sensible argument against nullification. Before nullification we must encounter the concept of states rights, strong states, functional states. If they are strong and independent enough, we can talk. What the heck does he want? Weak states?
dan

as this year moves along..we in the ‘states’ will be forced to ‘put up or shut up’…as the 2nd is torn to shreds ..I will ‘put up’…no words will stop the ‘assault’ ,no pun intended
TJ

Great. Thanks for the help!
http://twitter.com/LibertarianHC Vedran

War never proves who is right – only who is left.
http://TheInterventionistParadox.wordpress.com/ Bharat

“Tom Woods would be laying bricks or hauling lobsters in Mass”

Sounds like you’ve been playing around with Dr. Woods’s alternate universe machine.
libs

Actually, I don’t think there is much difference in the ‘how’ of control. They have done a good job of deceiving the population that they are entirely different groups, when infact they work together well to control putting forth what each group does best while supporting the other.
pjb1

One would think an academic should have some sense of shame, taking these lines of argumentation. It’s hard to take it as something other than a parody.
pjb1

To get down to the nitty gritty, might actually does make right, if you mean by that, that might usually prevails. But that does imply that, one side having prevailed at one point in time, it must remain that way forever. Questions “settled” by might are actually a lot more transient than those settled by reason.
Harry Johnson

The War of Southern Treason was not over nullification. Nor was it over states rights. The only “right” those people would fight to the death over was the “right” to buy and sell other people like livestock. That’s right ,spin, twist and try to b.s your way out of it any way you want but the thing was over slavery. You are arguing and supporting the buying and selling of human beings. That is not freedom. That is not liberty. There is no liberty when men are kept in chains to enrich others. That is what the South fought for with all of their pridefullness and arrogance. It is a vile legacy. And you are weasels to try to defend it.
http://twitter.com/Nick11766 Nick11766

This is all about Free Speech. After all the gov’t (and their corporate cronies) censor the media and ban books like “America Deceived II”.

Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely censored:

http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SXD6UHKK4UDFTE4P5ZBJG2VPKM Michael Smith

Um, yeah, right. The slaves arrived on ships that landed on Northern shores.
tto

http://youtu.be/y8VCbvMoCV8
http://www.facebook.com/marcus.antonius.50596 Marcus Antonius

Civil War, she is a comin Boys !
“Don’t Bury Your Guns ! Bury Those Who come for Them ! Then We’ll Hang The Elite Ruling Criminals Who Sent the Gun Grabbers !”
Sic Semper Tyrannis !
Dutch

I double second that. This statement should bring any argument on the topic to a screeching halt. Both for the cringe factor and the fact that it is unassailable.

But equally as funny is the Professor’s clever (he thinks so) pot shot about nullification being an outdated idea. As if there is anything in this world more outdated, or anything that has more fully run its course, than a college professor. Regardless of what discipline this professor teaches, I will now Google every existing shred of information on the topic, from here at my computer in my underwear in 30 seconds. Ready, go…

Done. Now what does that guy get paid to do? Teach a fraction of this information over the course of 15 weeks at a kings ransom? No more archaic a relic exists than that guy. Priceless…
dallascowboy1

So many ways to point out how wrong your thinking is Harry.

Firstly the North most certainly did not fight to free anyone, so you lose points there.

The war was fought over economic issues, slavery being *an* issue but certainly not *the* issue. So you lose points there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the PoTUS the right to attack and kill and maim any citizen of any state that does not want to be in the union. So you lose points there.

Point is Harry that nobody (that I have ever seen) defends slavery. But the South was the group in the right in the Civil War. If you truly lack the mental capacity to understand any issue beyond slavery, then you must HATE the North since there was still slavery in DE/MD/WV during and after the Civil War. Moreover ALL of those Northern states were down with slavery at the genesis of the country, up to and through the Civil War. So where exactly is your moral high ground? My guess is that you are actually a middle schooler as to your knowledge of the war and its causes, and because of this you post ignorant nonsense like you did.
Volunteer State

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America banned slave trade.
Anonymous

“The Civil war settled this” is the morally grotesque position repeated endlessly in left-wing and neoconservative (note how easily they get along when the chips are down, by the way) denunciations of nullification.

No joke. I found it especially disheartening that, after having written a paper for an ethics class about whether the US government should provide health care for all Americans and one of my arguments containing the idea that such a scheme would be unconstitutional, the professor of ethics made a nearly identical statement during a long email debate about my paper: “The Civil War settled that.” So how about that? Someone claiming to have an expertise on ethics such that she is a professor of it just made the argument that “might makes right.”