As Jack Balkin at Balkinization points out, the Cheney plan to use the military to arrest terrorists in the United States amounted to a suspension of the Fourth Amendment.
The central problem with the Cheney/Yoo/Addington theory was that it allowed the President to declare anyone in the United States an enemy combatant. Then, once the President made this declaration, the person would lose all their civil rights. The military could arrest and imprison the person without charges or any of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights; it could torture them for information (under the theory that these techniques did not shock the conscience under the Eighth Amendment), and it could hold them indefinitely in a military prison. The problem with the Cheney/Yoo/Addington theory, in short, was that it embraced elements of military dictatorship within the United States.
Frankly, until Republicans come to terms with this, I really can't see trusting them with executive ranch power again. Ever.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Cheney wanted to send the Army into Buffalo!!!
Can you imagine!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=2&hp
It would have been quite the wake-up call, I suppose. And suppose they had screwed up? Imagine if there was collateral damage in Buffalo?
And I wonder if the military brass would have been willing to go along? I suspect that there would have been a real pushback on this one, had it gone that far.
My God, Cheney was out of control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=2&hp
It would have been quite the wake-up call, I suppose. And suppose they had screwed up? Imagine if there was collateral damage in Buffalo?
And I wonder if the military brass would have been willing to go along? I suspect that there would have been a real pushback on this one, had it gone that far.
My God, Cheney was out of control.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Not a Bible character
Very thought-provoking post
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/you-are-not-a-bible-character/
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/you-are-not-a-bible-character/
Friday, July 10, 2009
US like Rome in decline?
It's one of those popular little political analogies, comparing the United States to late Republican Rome, or alternatively, to Imperial Rome.
While there certainly are some interesting parallels, especially in the relative political, military and economic dominance of the world,* it's easy to get carried away.
Firstly, it's highly debatable whether the US is in decline at all. Every generation feels its crisis are unprecedented and that things were better in the old days -- moral rot and all that. Now, I won't argue that everything is great in the USA. Some things are better and some things are worse, but we should also remember that the good old days including things like lynchings, disenfranchisement, sexism, racism, civil war etc. If there's truly a decline going on, we're not well-placed to spot it. I think the decline was very well along in Rome before people recognized it.
And Rome was different in many critical ways from the US. This doesn't make the US immune from decline, but it does suggest that it will decline in different ways and from different causes. Personally, I think analogies to Britain's experience may be more on target.
Among the differences that I think are critical is that the US is a federal republic, not a city state that acquired and empire. There's necessarily a different relationship between the parts and the whole. The US is, geo-politically, an island and naval power, secure from physical invasion. Rome was a land power, with very long and indefensible borders. Despite regional differences and ethnic politics, the US is a remarkably homogeneous society and culture, while Roman culture, while widespread, was often confined to the elites and did not displace local cultures in many places. Finally, technology and cultural development have created a far different world from 2,000 years ago, making analogies questionable. To the extent that human nature has not changed, you can learn something from Rome's experiences, just as Plato's Republic can be mined for insights today. But too much as changed to make that your primary source material. There are no steppe barbarians to keep at bay.
While there certainly are some interesting parallels, especially in the relative political, military and economic dominance of the world,* it's easy to get carried away.
Firstly, it's highly debatable whether the US is in decline at all. Every generation feels its crisis are unprecedented and that things were better in the old days -- moral rot and all that. Now, I won't argue that everything is great in the USA. Some things are better and some things are worse, but we should also remember that the good old days including things like lynchings, disenfranchisement, sexism, racism, civil war etc. If there's truly a decline going on, we're not well-placed to spot it. I think the decline was very well along in Rome before people recognized it.
And Rome was different in many critical ways from the US. This doesn't make the US immune from decline, but it does suggest that it will decline in different ways and from different causes. Personally, I think analogies to Britain's experience may be more on target.
Among the differences that I think are critical is that the US is a federal republic, not a city state that acquired and empire. There's necessarily a different relationship between the parts and the whole. The US is, geo-politically, an island and naval power, secure from physical invasion. Rome was a land power, with very long and indefensible borders. Despite regional differences and ethnic politics, the US is a remarkably homogeneous society and culture, while Roman culture, while widespread, was often confined to the elites and did not displace local cultures in many places. Finally, technology and cultural development have created a far different world from 2,000 years ago, making analogies questionable. To the extent that human nature has not changed, you can learn something from Rome's experiences, just as Plato's Republic can be mined for insights today. But too much as changed to make that your primary source material. There are no steppe barbarians to keep at bay.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
They are so stupid it hurts
As Greenwald points out as the Right Wing suddenly rediscovers the dangers of unbridled governmental power: All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State -- from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA "reforms" to massive increases in domestic "counter-Terrorism" programs -- are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.
They are really so incredibly stupid that it hurts to even think of it. For years I have wondered why they thought this was a good idea. Did they ever stop to consider if they wanted Hillary to have this kind of power, for example? They're just lucky it's Obama.
They are really so incredibly stupid that it hurts to even think of it. For years I have wondered why they thought this was a good idea. Did they ever stop to consider if they wanted Hillary to have this kind of power, for example? They're just lucky it's Obama.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Class warfare?
The rising economic inequality of the last few decades has been raising alarms in some quarters for quite some time, but a number of factors disguised it until recently.
Perhaps one of the most important was the entry of women into the workforce, which allowed most middle-class families to maintain a middle-class standard of living even though it took more hours of labor to do so. Women derived some benefits in self-actualization and independence from this trend, so it was not entirely unwelcome. But there was a natural limit on how far this could go.
A second factor disguising the inequality was the rise of Wal-Mart and other discounters and the ability to keep costs down by inports from China and other low-labor cost countries. It became possible to maintain the essentials of life at a lower cost.
A third factor was the rise in home values and the stock market rise, both of which made it seem as if people were building wealth (in home equity and 401k balances) even as they tapped out their savings and credit limits to maintain the middle class lifestyle they aspired to.
Not the fact that all this was built on sand and could not be sustained was recognized by some. There have been no shortages of Cassandras. But it was politically expedient to dismiss them and the rich and powerful could marshal a lot of resources to marginalize those voices.
But the market will, as it always will, eventually rule. And despite the fact that the rich and powerful pay lip service to the "Market" they don't really want the market to freely operate. What, after all, is the use of riches and power if it can't protect you from bad things?
Unfortunately one of the major parties lost sight of its responsibility to all the citizens and one of the major intellectual movements was hijacked by powerful interests to the point that timeless conservative principles such as rule of law and limited government were completely perverted to the point where "conservatives" would seriously argue for unlimited executive powers including the ability to disappear people, engage in torture and simply ignore Congress when the executive decided it was proper, and all of this without judicial review.
Well, it may very well be that the worm has turned.
There are people screaming that AIG's contracts are sacrosanct and that the government has no power to void them. Well, folks, if the government has the power to arrest you without charges, torture you to madness and detain you as long as it wants without trial, what chance do your little pieces of paper stand?
Fools.
Perhaps one of the most important was the entry of women into the workforce, which allowed most middle-class families to maintain a middle-class standard of living even though it took more hours of labor to do so. Women derived some benefits in self-actualization and independence from this trend, so it was not entirely unwelcome. But there was a natural limit on how far this could go.
A second factor disguising the inequality was the rise of Wal-Mart and other discounters and the ability to keep costs down by inports from China and other low-labor cost countries. It became possible to maintain the essentials of life at a lower cost.
A third factor was the rise in home values and the stock market rise, both of which made it seem as if people were building wealth (in home equity and 401k balances) even as they tapped out their savings and credit limits to maintain the middle class lifestyle they aspired to.
Not the fact that all this was built on sand and could not be sustained was recognized by some. There have been no shortages of Cassandras. But it was politically expedient to dismiss them and the rich and powerful could marshal a lot of resources to marginalize those voices.
But the market will, as it always will, eventually rule. And despite the fact that the rich and powerful pay lip service to the "Market" they don't really want the market to freely operate. What, after all, is the use of riches and power if it can't protect you from bad things?
Unfortunately one of the major parties lost sight of its responsibility to all the citizens and one of the major intellectual movements was hijacked by powerful interests to the point that timeless conservative principles such as rule of law and limited government were completely perverted to the point where "conservatives" would seriously argue for unlimited executive powers including the ability to disappear people, engage in torture and simply ignore Congress when the executive decided it was proper, and all of this without judicial review.
Well, it may very well be that the worm has turned.
There are people screaming that AIG's contracts are sacrosanct and that the government has no power to void them. Well, folks, if the government has the power to arrest you without charges, torture you to madness and detain you as long as it wants without trial, what chance do your little pieces of paper stand?
Fools.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Talking sense
Beltway blatherings about bipartisanship get dissed here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491659161904365.html by Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal:
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies -- not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.
The reason the Washington media think bipartisanship is the top issue, even when economic disaster stomps Americans like Godzilla, is because of the way it reflects their own professional standards. They are themselves technically impartial, and so it's only natural for them to wish for a hazy millennium in which everyone else in Washington is impartial, too.
It is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age. But in some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise. The role of the political parties is merely to cancel each other out, so that only the glorious centrists remain, triangulating majestically between obnoxious extremes.
What's more, bipartisanship's boosters can't even discern friend from foe. The Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, which seems to be growing even more conservative as its numbers shrink, has clearly resumed the strategies of the early Gingrich era -- obstruction, bomb-throwing and more obstruction. But to the mainstream media, the angry Republican pols seem to mainly discredit Mr. Obama, who failed to win over the GOP. Which will, of course, encourage the bitter-enders to obstruct even more.
Never has Beltway orthodoxy looked as clueless and futile as it does today. Confronted with the greatest failure of economic ideas in decades, it demands that the president make common cause with people for whom those failed ideas are still sacred. To think we can solve our problems in this way is like hoping to chart a route to the moon by water.
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies -- not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.
The reason the Washington media think bipartisanship is the top issue, even when economic disaster stomps Americans like Godzilla, is because of the way it reflects their own professional standards. They are themselves technically impartial, and so it's only natural for them to wish for a hazy millennium in which everyone else in Washington is impartial, too.
It is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age. But in some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise. The role of the political parties is merely to cancel each other out, so that only the glorious centrists remain, triangulating majestically between obnoxious extremes.
What's more, bipartisanship's boosters can't even discern friend from foe. The Republican caucus in the House of Representatives, which seems to be growing even more conservative as its numbers shrink, has clearly resumed the strategies of the early Gingrich era -- obstruction, bomb-throwing and more obstruction. But to the mainstream media, the angry Republican pols seem to mainly discredit Mr. Obama, who failed to win over the GOP. Which will, of course, encourage the bitter-enders to obstruct even more.
Never has Beltway orthodoxy looked as clueless and futile as it does today. Confronted with the greatest failure of economic ideas in decades, it demands that the president make common cause with people for whom those failed ideas are still sacred. To think we can solve our problems in this way is like hoping to chart a route to the moon by water.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama press conference
Seemed to go rather well, as far as I could see.
Obama's unflappable and takes the long view, which makes him really hard for the Bush I-Clinton-Bush II trained press and punditry to figure out.
The cable news cycle and political press tend to be like Wall Street day traders, excessively focused on short-term considerations. Wise investors, we're always told, look out for the long term and I think Obama is showing that rings just as true for politicians.
Tactical politics may be entertaining, but the vast majority of people, of voters, only check in on an occasional basis and they miss out on most of the tactical maneuvering. They're interested in the long haul. We saw that with the public reaction to the Iraq war. While the pundits were still debating, the public rendered its judgment.
Obama's unflappable and takes the long view, which makes him really hard for the Bush I-Clinton-Bush II trained press and punditry to figure out.
The cable news cycle and political press tend to be like Wall Street day traders, excessively focused on short-term considerations. Wise investors, we're always told, look out for the long term and I think Obama is showing that rings just as true for politicians.
Tactical politics may be entertaining, but the vast majority of people, of voters, only check in on an occasional basis and they miss out on most of the tactical maneuvering. They're interested in the long haul. We saw that with the public reaction to the Iraq war. While the pundits were still debating, the public rendered its judgment.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Gut feeling -- it won't be enough
I think the stimulus package, regardless of what exact form it takes, is not a bad thing. It's at the least, politically necessary that the government appear to be doing something.
But at the end of the day I don't think it will prove to be enough.
I don't have any deep economic data to back this up. I don't have a crystal ball or a degree in economics, although I don't think there's any evidence either one would be useful in making a forecast.
No, I base my opinion on the simple observation that at every single stage of this unfolding crisis the "experts" have severely underestimated the nature, scope and duration of the problem.
Looking at Congress members, particularly the GOP, yammering about tax cuts and spending (which they suddenly hate), shows that they really don't get it.
The speed and scale of the crisis has stunned the general public, so the coming reaction has been delayed, but it will come. Dick Cheney, of all people, warned the Republicans about a "Hoover moment." They aren't listening.
The class warfare that the wealthy have waged for the last couple of decades (note the disconnect between earning power and productivity) is very dangerous. Historical precedent suggest that it could end rather badly for the let-them-eat-cake crowd. While U.S. political structures are probably robust enough to prevent the worst kinds of reaction, that's not true elsewhere and I'd be especially watchful about how things play out in more volatile places such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and, closer to home, Mexico.
But at the end of the day I don't think it will prove to be enough.
I don't have any deep economic data to back this up. I don't have a crystal ball or a degree in economics, although I don't think there's any evidence either one would be useful in making a forecast.
No, I base my opinion on the simple observation that at every single stage of this unfolding crisis the "experts" have severely underestimated the nature, scope and duration of the problem.
Looking at Congress members, particularly the GOP, yammering about tax cuts and spending (which they suddenly hate), shows that they really don't get it.
The speed and scale of the crisis has stunned the general public, so the coming reaction has been delayed, but it will come. Dick Cheney, of all people, warned the Republicans about a "Hoover moment." They aren't listening.
The class warfare that the wealthy have waged for the last couple of decades (note the disconnect between earning power and productivity) is very dangerous. Historical precedent suggest that it could end rather badly for the let-them-eat-cake crowd. While U.S. political structures are probably robust enough to prevent the worst kinds of reaction, that's not true elsewhere and I'd be especially watchful about how things play out in more volatile places such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and, closer to home, Mexico.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama starts to lay down markers
Frankly, I think bipartisanship support for the Stimulus package is probably a waste of time in the current situation.
I don't see any reason to think the GOP is going to do anything constructive until they realize that they have something to lose. Obama needs to make it clear he's going to pass something they like less if they aren't willing to compromise.
Gergen is talking on CNN is talking about "driving the GOP away" but if they're NOT going to vote for it anyway then there's little reason to placate them. IF the GOP wants to get stuff out of the bill, some of them need to be willing to provide a few votes at the end of the day.
I don't see any reason to think the GOP is going to do anything constructive until they realize that they have something to lose. Obama needs to make it clear he's going to pass something they like less if they aren't willing to compromise.
Gergen is talking on CNN is talking about "driving the GOP away" but if they're NOT going to vote for it anyway then there's little reason to placate them. IF the GOP wants to get stuff out of the bill, some of them need to be willing to provide a few votes at the end of the day.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Daschle pulls out
I don't have a dog in this race, except in the general sense of hoping that the Obama administration will be reasonable successful in dealing with our big problems.
So I don't care that Daschle is out, but I do worry that the bar is getting awful high and we may be losing out on a lot of human talent that simply can't stand up to the scrutiny we demand and never even applies to join the government.
So I don't care that Daschle is out, but I do worry that the bar is getting awful high and we may be losing out on a lot of human talent that simply can't stand up to the scrutiny we demand and never even applies to join the government.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Greenwald on the responsibility of the elites for the Bush horrors
Greenwald is rarely succinct, but here is one of the highlights:
As the Bush administration comes to a close, one overarching question is this: how were the transgressions and abuses of the last eight years allowed to be unleashed with so little backlash and resistance? Just consider -- with no hyperbole -- what our Government, our country, has done. We systematically tortured people in our custody using techniques approved at the highest levels, many of whom died as a result. We created secret prisons -- "black site" gulags -- beyond the reach of international monitoring groups. We abducted and imprisoned even U.S. citizens and legal residents without any trial, holding them incommunicado and without even the right to access lawyers for years, while we tortured them to the point of insanity. We disappeared innocent people off the streets, sent them to countries where we knew they'd be tortured, and then closed off our courts to them once it was clear they had done nothing wrong. We adopted the very policies and techniques long considered to be the very definition of "war crimes".
Our Government turned the NSA apparatus inward -- something that was never supposed to happen -- spying on our conversations in secret and without warrants or oversight, all in violation of the law, and then, once revealed, acted to immunize the private-sector lawbreakers. And that's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people we killed and the millions more we displaced with a war launched on false pretense. And on and on and on.
Prime responsibility for those actions may lie with the administration which implemented them and with the Congress that thereafter acquiesced to and even endorsed much of it, but it also lies with much of our opinion-making elite and expert class. Even when they politely disagreed, they treated most of this -- and still do -- as though it were reasonable and customary, eschewing strong language and emphatic condemnation and moral outrage, while perversely and self-servingly construing their constraint as some sort of a virtue -- a hallmark of dignified Seriousness. That created the impression that these were just garden-variety political conflicts to be batted about in pretty conference rooms by mutually regarding elites on both sides of these "debates." Meanwhile, those who objected too strongly and in disrespectful tones, who described the extremism and lawlessness taking place, were dismissed by these same elites as overheated, fringe hysterics.
Some political issues, including ones that provoke intense passion, have many sides, but not all do. Not all positions are worthy of respect. Some actions and policies require outrage and condemnation, to the point where it becomes irresponsible to comment on them without expressing that. Some ideas are so corrupted and dangerous and indefensible that they do reflect negatively on the character and credibility of their advocates, on the propriety of treating those advocates as though they're respectable and honorable. Most of all, elites who seek out an opinion platform have a responsibility to accept that their ideas and arguments have consequences and they should be held accountable for what their actions spawn.
As the Bush administration comes to a close, one overarching question is this: how were the transgressions and abuses of the last eight years allowed to be unleashed with so little backlash and resistance? Just consider -- with no hyperbole -- what our Government, our country, has done. We systematically tortured people in our custody using techniques approved at the highest levels, many of whom died as a result. We created secret prisons -- "black site" gulags -- beyond the reach of international monitoring groups. We abducted and imprisoned even U.S. citizens and legal residents without any trial, holding them incommunicado and without even the right to access lawyers for years, while we tortured them to the point of insanity. We disappeared innocent people off the streets, sent them to countries where we knew they'd be tortured, and then closed off our courts to them once it was clear they had done nothing wrong. We adopted the very policies and techniques long considered to be the very definition of "war crimes".
Our Government turned the NSA apparatus inward -- something that was never supposed to happen -- spying on our conversations in secret and without warrants or oversight, all in violation of the law, and then, once revealed, acted to immunize the private-sector lawbreakers. And that's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people we killed and the millions more we displaced with a war launched on false pretense. And on and on and on.
Prime responsibility for those actions may lie with the administration which implemented them and with the Congress that thereafter acquiesced to and even endorsed much of it, but it also lies with much of our opinion-making elite and expert class. Even when they politely disagreed, they treated most of this -- and still do -- as though it were reasonable and customary, eschewing strong language and emphatic condemnation and moral outrage, while perversely and self-servingly construing their constraint as some sort of a virtue -- a hallmark of dignified Seriousness. That created the impression that these were just garden-variety political conflicts to be batted about in pretty conference rooms by mutually regarding elites on both sides of these "debates." Meanwhile, those who objected too strongly and in disrespectful tones, who described the extremism and lawlessness taking place, were dismissed by these same elites as overheated, fringe hysterics.
Some political issues, including ones that provoke intense passion, have many sides, but not all do. Not all positions are worthy of respect. Some actions and policies require outrage and condemnation, to the point where it becomes irresponsible to comment on them without expressing that. Some ideas are so corrupted and dangerous and indefensible that they do reflect negatively on the character and credibility of their advocates, on the propriety of treating those advocates as though they're respectable and honorable. Most of all, elites who seek out an opinion platform have a responsibility to accept that their ideas and arguments have consequences and they should be held accountable for what their actions spawn.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama economic meeting
Fascinating and impressive list of participants.
Obama seems to have a kanck for getting talented people want to work for him.
If he can keep the egos in check enough for these sorts of folks to work together then we may see some very good things come out of the next four years.
Obama seems to have a kanck for getting talented people want to work for him.
If he can keep the egos in check enough for these sorts of folks to work together then we may see some very good things come out of the next four years.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Not enough room in the GOP big tent, or is it a pup tent now?
Gun company president forced to resign by Internet hate because he revealed he was voting for Obama in a newspaper interview. Mostly because of the war, he says.
Os is the Republican "big tent" now a pup tent?
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/10/31/Gun_firm_head_resigns_over_Obama_support/UPI-19331225496140/
Os is the Republican "big tent" now a pup tent?
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/10/31/Gun_firm_head_resigns_over_Obama_support/UPI-19331225496140/
Friday, October 31, 2008
A comment on Afro-mercial
I left this comment on http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/10/lil-obama.html?cid=137189631#comments in response to Riehl asking if anyone saw the "Afro-merical" on TV.
And after calling it an "afro-mercial" you expect:
1) To be taken seriously
2) To recruit non-white people into the conservative movement someday
3) Someone to believe your self-delusion that it wasn't a racist remark
Well, I know it's completely fruitless to tell you this, because your blindness is impenetrable, but it is, indeed, a racist remark. The fact that you can't see it is no evidence that it isn't actually racist, merely evidence that you don't understand.
Given that the country is inexorably becoming more diverse by the minute, consvervatives are going to have to come to terms with the question of race and ethnicity if conservative philosophy is to survive in American politics.
There's nothing inherently racist in a conservative politics, although its particular history in America on that score is not a happy one. There are left-wing racists and many individuals from minority groups have conservative personal philosophy and conduct. If conservatives became self-aware enough about racism to purge it from their polotics they may find it possible to connect political conservatism with the personal conservatism of many minority people.
Instead we have a black Republican women in tears because her Party mailed out "Obamabucks" with images of watermeleon and fried chicken and the party official professing ignorance of its racial implications.
If she was, indeed, ignorant (giving her far more than the benefit of the coubt) than she needs to educate herself. Ignorance is a poor defense on this topic.
And after calling it an "afro-mercial" you expect:
1) To be taken seriously
2) To recruit non-white people into the conservative movement someday
3) Someone to believe your self-delusion that it wasn't a racist remark
Well, I know it's completely fruitless to tell you this, because your blindness is impenetrable, but it is, indeed, a racist remark. The fact that you can't see it is no evidence that it isn't actually racist, merely evidence that you don't understand.
Given that the country is inexorably becoming more diverse by the minute, consvervatives are going to have to come to terms with the question of race and ethnicity if conservative philosophy is to survive in American politics.
There's nothing inherently racist in a conservative politics, although its particular history in America on that score is not a happy one. There are left-wing racists and many individuals from minority groups have conservative personal philosophy and conduct. If conservatives became self-aware enough about racism to purge it from their polotics they may find it possible to connect political conservatism with the personal conservatism of many minority people.
Instead we have a black Republican women in tears because her Party mailed out "Obamabucks" with images of watermeleon and fried chicken and the party official professing ignorance of its racial implications.
If she was, indeed, ignorant (giving her far more than the benefit of the coubt) than she needs to educate herself. Ignorance is a poor defense on this topic.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
America's longest war
A Sullivan reader writes an insightful analysis of what is really at stake.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-end-of-amer.html#more
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-end-of-amer.html#more
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Mills of God
From this post: http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34961
But in full: Though the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all.
--Longfellow
After 60 yrs, justice is now. In '48 when Truman, though facing sweeping defeat, decreed a robust civil rights plank for the Dem platform and Humphrey intoned that we must, in Lincoln's words, "do the right, as God has given us to know the right," the racists decamped. A body formerly known as the Party of Lincoln gave them succor, crafted a cynical "southern strategy," and perennially prevailed.
This unholy union has now corroded into a mash-up of Old Dixie, prairie gunslingers, anti-tax fetishists, end times Rapturists, militiamen and Millenarians, jingoists and misanthropes, survivalists and cranks, and the odd secessionist witch doctor. Soon there will be a reckoning between the cerebral cons (who've been long content to pal up with vermin) and the wingnut residuum that has found its avatar in Bible Spice.
Meanwhile, the Dems have a nation to rebuild. Pretty that this came to pass through the strivings of an unassuming black American, a legacy of what Truman, Humphrey, and numberless others went to their political graves for. Thanks, God, you’re ok after all.
But in full: Though the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all.
--Longfellow
After 60 yrs, justice is now. In '48 when Truman, though facing sweeping defeat, decreed a robust civil rights plank for the Dem platform and Humphrey intoned that we must, in Lincoln's words, "do the right, as God has given us to know the right," the racists decamped. A body formerly known as the Party of Lincoln gave them succor, crafted a cynical "southern strategy," and perennially prevailed.
This unholy union has now corroded into a mash-up of Old Dixie, prairie gunslingers, anti-tax fetishists, end times Rapturists, militiamen and Millenarians, jingoists and misanthropes, survivalists and cranks, and the odd secessionist witch doctor. Soon there will be a reckoning between the cerebral cons (who've been long content to pal up with vermin) and the wingnut residuum that has found its avatar in Bible Spice.
Meanwhile, the Dems have a nation to rebuild. Pretty that this came to pass through the strivings of an unassuming black American, a legacy of what Truman, Humphrey, and numberless others went to their political graves for. Thanks, God, you’re ok after all.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Last Week
I'm cautiously optimistic at this point that things will come out alright on election day.
A lot can happen in a week, of course, but every day provides less chance for something dramatic to occur that will change things. Indeed, at this point, with so many people having already voted, it's possible that a late event will not change things enough to make a difference.
That said, there are powerful forces at work that will not go quietly.
Obama, despite being a fairly conventional politician, represents a real danger to some of the people who have been a disaster over the last eight years.
One suspects that there is a lot of crony capitalism that would be in danger of exposure and prosecution by a professional and depoliticized Justice Department. One knows that there are many individuals who have a real exposure for war crimes prosecutions in the wake of the torture regime. And there's no telling what vile secrets may lurk in the secret surveillance programs, but I think it would be a truly shocking development if an administration that has shown so little respect for law and limits in everything else had turned out to be restrained and scrupulous in this one area.
A lot can happen in a week, of course, but every day provides less chance for something dramatic to occur that will change things. Indeed, at this point, with so many people having already voted, it's possible that a late event will not change things enough to make a difference.
That said, there are powerful forces at work that will not go quietly.
Obama, despite being a fairly conventional politician, represents a real danger to some of the people who have been a disaster over the last eight years.
One suspects that there is a lot of crony capitalism that would be in danger of exposure and prosecution by a professional and depoliticized Justice Department. One knows that there are many individuals who have a real exposure for war crimes prosecutions in the wake of the torture regime. And there's no telling what vile secrets may lurk in the secret surveillance programs, but I think it would be a truly shocking development if an administration that has shown so little respect for law and limits in everything else had turned out to be restrained and scrupulous in this one area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
