Political Confusion

Hey Hey, Ho Ho; Roe v. Wade has Got to Go

2006-02-25T18:10:00.000-05:00

For the record, I agree with you about Roe. This decision created the worst sort of judicial purgatory. Which, ironically, is where aborted babies go when they die.

But really, what options do you have if you no longer buy into the sanctity of the political process? I am sincerely terrified of the Constitution's potential inability to withstand an assault from fundamentalist "Christianity".

Yet Roe doesn't present a fully unresolvable case of cognitive dissonance quite the same way Brown did. With Brown, the legislative process was doomed to fail for decades to come and the judiciary was the only feasible remedy. Thus the proper question here cannot, by definition, be whether or not a certain quantity of what the hysterical right has dubbed "judicial activism" is a morally good thing. I mean, what is the democratic process worth when it perpetuates a blatant evil? And why on earth is the only functional remedy for the grossest injustice in American history the idea on trial here?

Abuse of state power, that's why. And it's a damn good why, most of the time. It's certainly not a power I'd cede willingly to our contemporary Order of Apollo, run by the deceptively congenial Dr. Dobson. This question--and its theological cousin, the appropriate tolerance for inter-temporal flexibility in defining "sin"--is the lynchpin of most modern political tension. The third party that makes tangible progress in squaring this circle will permanently alter the philosophical landscape of the country as much as the Republicans did in 1860.

Bush's Mussolini Moment?

2006-02-09T23:34:00.000-05:00

While I appreciate your willingness to call "moonbat" on my bullshit, the Unitary Executive Theory is not about whether or not the Secretary of the Interior has the right to carve out an independent fiefdom within the executive branch. In the current political climate it's about one thing and only one thing: dictatorial powers. It's the brainchild of freeper Trotskyites, and they are explicit in their support of an unconstrained President. A toast to monarchy, plain and simple.

A week ago I thought that, if George Bush beat up an old woman up on national television, the believers would have jumped through hoops making excuses. After Portgate I'm not so sure. To be honest, I sort of doubt this congressional outrage is anything more than a racist play to peoples' worst instincts. This sort of herd justice usually produces good arguments for an enlightened monarchy. In a deliberative system, shitty hysterical solutions--like the mindlessly cruel drug war and the profoundly unneccesary PATRIOT Act--are nearly impossible to undo once they've been put in place.

But I'm not entirely sure I do support handing over control of our ports to an oil-rich Arab sultanite either. So instead of taking sides I'm just going to enjoy watching the GOP finally--finally--start to cannabalize this inexcusable administration. The Bushies set this xeno-mongering tone, and their manufactured outrage is hopelessly transparent. People needed to believe that some things were not for sale with this crowd. People were wrong.

Roe v. Wade - good result, bad law

2006-02-01T15:16:00.000-05:00

Responding to your points out of order: (side note -- the topics of this post, law, political science and Family Guy, occupy roughly 99% of my time, both now and when I was in college. Good call.)

Unitary Executive -- Actually, my understanding of the Unitary Executive Theory is similar to the one Judge Alito tried to express in his hearing. The Unitary Executive theory has little to say about how extensive the Executive power is, or if he's above the law, etc. The Unitary Executive theory (though I'll check my poli sci books tonight) deals mainly with how the Executive power is allocated within the Executive branch, i.e. to what extent the President can exert control over other members of the Executive branch.
As a for instance, under the Unitary Executive theory, Congress has no authority to establish "independent agencies" to wield Executive authority. They can provide for these groups, but under the Unitary theory, any member of these groups/commissions/boards can be fired by the President at any time for any reason, and should implicitly recognize that the authority they wield comes from the man who the People elect to be our Chief Executive.
While I'm sure many who believe in the Unitary Executive also believe the Executive power trumps the Legislative at certain times (i.e. war), the two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Personally, I do believe in the Unitary Executive theory but believe the Executive branch authority to be weaker than the Legislative branch, given our roots in a parliamentary system

Liberal Media Bias -- I'm not one to call everything the media do overly biased, though as a regular reader of the Washington Post I do find that, when it slants, it is more likely to do so left. But it would be just as fair to say that the Post and the Times have an elitist bias, or and educated bias, or any number of other biases. That's because the media is simply a collection of individuals, each with their own individual perspective (or bias, if you prefer). Amalgamated together, these perspectives form a journalism core that can't help but be biased in favor of others who think like them, of similar backgrounds, educations levels, and outlooks.
I don't fault them for it, anymore than you or I could be faulted for being slightly more likely, having just met two people, to prefer the one who is better educated, likes rugby and drinks beer over a dumb Californian who only eats tofu. We can't help it. I had a number of professors who did a slightly better job explaining those viewpoints with which they agreed, as opposed to others (normally, the ones with which I agreed). They were still great teachers, and I still learned immensely, but I don't think even they would deny a slight bias. It's only human.

Roe v. Wade -- Okay, before I get onto the core point here, let's clear it up again. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not, I repeat NOT, make abortion illegal. It would instead allow each state to decide that for themselves, and each state court to make a similar judgment if legislation were approved outlawing it.
With that in mind, one loses nothing by admitting that Roe v. Wade is arguably (along with Bush v. Gore) one of the most outcome driven decisions EVER. Roe basis its authority on the "penumbras and emanations" of privacy from other amendments, as though the 1st and 4th amendments emit some kind of odor that, when taken together, smells like privacy. So bad is Roe that most legal scholars don't even try to defend its reasoning -- instead they focus on the result. Fine, we Republicans did that with Bush v. Gore. But remember how angry Dems got after that decision? And to social conservatives, Roe was the legalization of murder.
Which brings us to Alito. In 2004 Republicans elected a Republican president and Republican majorities to both houses. I would say that Alito is no more conservative than Ginsberg or Breyer is liberal, and if memory serves, Republicans didn't oppose them b/c they recognized that a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate should have a wide leeway on such things.
To the extent you still believe Alito to be a "whackjob", ask yourself why so many of his collegues from the 3rd Circuit would support his nomination. Remember, they have a lifetime appointment, and no need to "lie" to keep their jobs. Is he more conservative than you would like? Sure. But if I'm stuck with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg, you'll have to tough it out.

Justice Birch, I Presume

2006-01-30T19:41:00.000-05:00

Doing work at work?!? Garbage. If you were more of a lefty you could join a union and take a stand against that sort of occupational tyranny.

Boaz is absolutely correct--there is nothing divinely ordained about the balance of the court. But honestly, Bush supporters have no place criticizing the media at this junction in history. Conservatives have internalized the idea of "liberal" media bias, and no amount of factual deconstruction seems adequate to dislodge this faulty sense of victimization.

The two towering boogeymen haunting the collective subconscious of William F. Buckley's intellectual progeny--the New York Times and the Washington Post--couldn't do a better job of carrying water for the Bush Administration. The Times let it's star Washington bureau reporter publish an unverified stream of White House war propaganda. The Post just went to the mattresses defending the GOP's easily disproved Abrahamoff-containment talking point. And since these distortions come from "liberal" bastions like the Times and the Post, their impact is magnified many times over.

Besides, you should be grateful that the media's only anti-Alito focus is that he would disrupt the balance of the court, and not on more legitimate concerns--like the fact that he's an extremist wacko. The country is roughly 70% pro-choice, but for some reason (probably the liberal media), this man is being portrayed as a mainstream bulwark against "activist" judges. You're pro-choice, why do you support Alito?

Besides, the man is either crazy, or he's a liar. Alito is on record saying that the unitary executive theory "best captures the essence" of the Constitution. Right, and The Family Guy best captures the essence of life in Rhode Island. "Unitary executive theory" is just a fancy way of saying that the President is above the law so long as he doesn't get his dick sucked. And don't get me wrong, Alito is fully entitled to believe that the President should be granted dictatorial power for the duration of his time in office. But he cannot do so and still pretend to be an "originalist". While we can't ever be sure exactly what the intent of the Framers' was, we can be sure that the unitary executive theory is roughly antithetical to it.

The fact that he's brilliant is irrelevant. Can you honestly tell me that you can't think of one person at Swarthmore who was fully decent at heart and chock full of intellectual firepower, but who you wouldn't want within 100 miles of the Supreme Court? I can think of a handful who were way too far left for my taste. Is there no potential for reciprocity?

"Balance of the Court"

2006-01-23T13:32:00.000-05:00

Sorry it has been a while since the last post, but apparently I'm expected to do work at work, so there has been some catching up to do since the holidays.

Also, I found an article that articulately expresses my outrage over the newpaper coverage of the Alito hearings, which I will reprint below. I'm curious as to any comments anyone might have before I (hopefully tomorrow) post my full feelings on the matter.

Ginsburg in the "Balance"
It didn't matter then—it shouldn't now
David Boaz
Remember all those news stories in 1993 about how the nomination of former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace conservative Justice Byron White on the United States Supreme Court would "tilt the balance of the court to the left?"
Of course you don't. Because there weren't any.
In the past three months, the major media have repeatedly hammered away at the theme that Judge Samuel Alito Jr. would "shift the Supreme Court to the right" if he replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Lexis/Nexis, major newspapers have used the phrase "shift the court" 36 times in their Alito coverage. They have referred to the "balance of the court" 32 times and "the court's balance" another 15. "Shift to the right" accounted for another 18 mentions.
Major radio and television programs indexed by Lexis/Nexis have used those phrases 63 times. CNN told viewers that Alito would "tilt the balance of the court" twice on the day President Bush nominated him. NPR's first-day story on "Morning Edition" was headlined "Alito could move court dramatically to the right."
Now maybe all this is to be expected. Alito is a conservative, he's been nominated to replace a centrist justice, and he probably will move the Supreme Court somewhat to the right—which is probably what at least some voters had in mind when they elected a Republican president and 55 Republican senators.
But note the contrast to 1993, when President Bill Clinton nominated the liberal Ginsburg to replace conservative White. White had dissented from the landmark decisions on abortion rights in Roe v. Wade and on criminal procedure in the Miranda case, and he had written the majority opinion upholding sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. Obviously his replacement by the former general counsel of the ACLU was going to "move the court dramatically to the left."
So did the media report Ginsburg's nomination that way? Not on your life.
Not a single major newspaper used the phrases "shift the court," "shift to the left," or "balance of the court" in the six weeks between Clinton's nomination and the Senate's ratification of Ginsburg. Only one story in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer mentioned the "court's balance," and that writer thought that Ginsburg would move a "far right" court "toward the center."
The only network broadcast to use any of those phrases was an NPR interview in which liberal law professor Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University said that Ginsburg might offer a "subtle change...a nuance" in "the balance of the court" because she would line up with Justice O'Connor in the center.
No one thought that some momentary balance on the Court had to be preserved when a justice retired or that it was inappropriate to shift the ideological makeup of the Court. And certainly no one had made that point during 60 years of mostly liberal appointees from Democratic presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson—even as they replaced more conservative justices who had died or retired. ut suddenly, we are told by senators, activists, and pundits that a nominee should not change the makeup of the Court.
For another striking contrast, take a look at The Washington Post's respective headlines on the days the two judges were nominated. For Ginsburg:
"Judge Ruth Ginsburg Named to High Court; Clinton's Unexpected Choice Is Women's Rights Pioneer"
"A Mentor, Role Model and Heroine of Feminist Lawyers"
"Nominee's Philosophy Seen Strengthening the Center"
For Alito:
"Alito Nomination Sets Stage for Ideological Battle; Bush's Court Pick Is Appeals Judge with Record of Conservative Rulings"
"With a Pick from the Right, Bush Looks to Rally GOP in Tough Times"
"Comparisons to Scalia, But Also to Roberts"
"Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse," and "Alito Leans Right Where O'Connor Swung Left"
Despite the Post's claim that Ginsburg was a centrist, she has in fact been a consistently liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Research by Richard J. Timpone, director of the Political Research Laboratory at Ohio State, finds that she is the most liberal member of the Court on economic issues and virtually tied with Justices John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer on civil liberties. The Institute for Justice reviewed three years of Court terms and found: "The justices least likely to constrain government power and protect individual liberties were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer." Three years later they found the same results for Ginsburg's first seven terms: she and Breyer voted against protecting civil and economic liberties more often than any other justice.
The issue is not Ginsburg's record, but the media's notion that the Supreme Court exists in some sort of delicate balance which will be upset by the introduction of a conservative justice. The Senate has every right to consider whether Judge Alito will be too conservative, too accommodating to executive power, or too dismissive of discrimination claims. But the Supreme Court's current ideological makeup is not divinely ordained, and we should stop wringing our hands over whether he will "shift the court" in some direction.
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.

"No man is above the law" -- Rep. Henry Hyde (1998)

2006-01-02T20:31:00.000-05:00

Interesting. Where you see "tactical stupidity", I see mountains of circumstantial evidence. The President is up to no good, and I can prove it. At the end of the day, we really don't have to get into a technical debate on the 4th Amendment to know that what Bush is doing is wrong. Why? Because every single one of his explanations fails miserably.

The "NSA Program" has not made us any safer. "But we haven't been attacked since 9/11." Great, and this rock keeps tigers away. Besides, we have been attacked. If you don't consider what happened in London an attack on us, and on some level a failure of American leadership, you don't understand the nature of the war we're fighting. We're fighting a new kind of war.

Exposing this program has not, in any way shape or form, made the US less safe. Everyone worth their salt in a terrorist organization assumes they are being monitored. And anybody who's so stupid he needs a front page story on the NY Times to put two and two together wouldn't be worth monitoring in the first place. And on the off chance someone that stupid was worth monitoring, there was a 100% chance that the necessary warrants would have been approved.

It's also patently ridiculous to equate the Plame leak with this one. And forget about the disclosure of her identity for a minute. Dismantling a CIA front operation is serious business. The government can't exactly setup energy consultancies with offices in strategic countries around the world on a moment's notice. Especially ones which specialize in intercepting WMD on the black market. How many of those do you think we had before Novak sold what was left of his soul? Brewster Jennings was lost to an act of Benedict Rosenberg-magnitude treason.

Now, before we muddy the debate any further acknowledging the GOP's welcome embrace of moral relativism, I would like to clarify, as fact, that this NSA business very obviously violates the "original intent" of the 4th Amendment. I mean, just read it...

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

We both know I don't have your legal training, but I simply fail to see how the fact that they're not using the fruits of their "total information" campaign as evidence in criminal proceedings is the issue at hand. The current Republican interpretation of the 4th Amendment--that in the good old days a government acting in good faith could practice unfettered law enforcement until Earl Warren rode roughshod over the country on the back of a forked tongued dragon while smoking pot and drinking babies' blood--is a delusion with no roots whatsoever in the Constitution.

A little 4th Amendment lesson

2005-12-28T14:51:00.000-05:00

Would I be concerned if the President were breaking the law? Absolutely. But what has been ignored, so far as I can tell, is that the spying of which he is being accused isn't illegal, it just wouldn't allow them to arrest anyone with the information.
Hence the need for the 4th Amendment lesson. The reason police obtain warrants isn't because they fear criminal prosecution for doing a search without one. To the extent that a warrantless search of a home is illegal, police officers would almost certainly be covered under qualified immunity. They get a warrant because the exclusionary rule (which was invented by the Warren Court in the 1960's) says that they can't use evidence gained from an illegal search in a criminal prosecution (the so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine). And... that's about it. So, if the police think you have drugs in your house, and they kick the door in and take the drugs without a warrant (or a good-faith belief, or exigent circumstances, or one of the other exceptions) they can't use those drugs as evidence against you in a criminal prosecution. Unless they can cure them another way (again, an exception). Oh, and they could like use them against other people who were in your house buying/selling/using, since they wouldn't have standing to challenge the search, but that's a topic for another day. But you'd be safe from prosecution. On the other hand, you wouldn't get the drugs back (since they are illegal) so if the police were trying to prevent you from selling them, they have succeeded.
Sometimes this is known as the "ticking time-bomb" scenario: What if police think there is a bomb, but don't have a warrant? Most would say they should seize the bomb, pass up the chance to prosecute the bomber on that count, but just place surveillance on him until he screws up in some other way.

So, a long-winded way of saying that yes, I'm troubled by the fact that the President may have spied on U.S. citizens domestically. However, I'm not troubled if these people were not citizens, nor would I have been troubled if the spying had taken place on the other end (i.e. you call an international number the NSA has been monitoring over there)
To be honest, I'm more offended by the tactical stupidity of it all. Since the FISA courts do give out warrants like hot-cakes, why not just apply for the warrant before the 72 hours expires? Especially if you've heard something good during that time? You don't even have to stop watching football on Sunday; just do it when you get to work the next morning.

The War on Trust

2005-12-19T20:32:00.000-05:00

Don't you think the fact that the Secretary of State felt the need to use the word "authority" approximately 7.5 times per minute on Meet the Press is a Freudian confession that she doesn't, in fact, think that the President has the authority to eavesdrop on anyone he damn well pleases?

This is illegal, this is frightening, and this is the precise moment history will judge Conservatism. At what point do you admit to yourself, quietly, in your gut, that you cannot pretend to support a deranged man with a God complex any longer? You can't look yourself in the mirror after trying to spin this 1984 business in public for a paycheck. Yes, he means well; at least in some "nice to dogs and children" sort of way; but so what?

There are no good reasons for this. At all.

There are two reasons for this. One, obviously, is that he's spying on people he shouldn't be. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find out that Bush has authorized, supported, and lusted after the the illegal survelliance of peaceful anti-war groups, newspapers, think tanks, TV news stations, universities, the DLC, and anyone else who may question His wisdom. These are the only people the FISA court would ever deny warrants for; although that court has been Astoundingly hospitable, all things considered. You don't even need to get a warrant until 72 hours after you've started the spying for crying out loud.

The other reason is that George W Bush is personally offended by the concept of "getting a warrant". A warrant is a permission slip, and he doesn't have to ask anyone's permission now that he's President dad. See, I can be president too dad. Look at me daddy. And so on.

Most likely he wanted someone spied upon, and couldn't even get a drunk John Yoo to sign off on it, so he orded the clandestine program. Because He can do whatever He wants.

Honestly, how is this ok to you? Do you have any reservations?

The War on Saturnalia

2005-12-16T18:11:00.000-05:00

Why is the Fox News board room very obviously and very consciously whipping the conservative rank and file into this completely bogus and transparently invalid lather over Christmas? How Straussian. Intentionally liquoring up the masses with bile during the holiday season is a mightily unChristian endeavor. And to be honest, I see some Hotel Rwanda shit in our future if you guys are allowed to keep playing this game.

My friend, seriously, do you support this war on Christmas nonsense or do you see through it?

Besides, if your side really wants to pick this fight, then the good Dr. Dobson is going to find himself on national television explaining to me how, exactly, Easter’s not the continuation of an ancient pagan fertility ritual. Although I suppose he could always produce a lost gospel mentioning the epic battle between Jesus and the giant rabbit or something.

Originalism: A necessary grounding

2005-12-05T13:30:00.000-05:00

In many ways, the critique of originalism is spot-on. There are some (maybe many) who use originalism as a facade for writing their own values into the Constitution. But I think if one is honest about Originalism (both strengths and weaknesses) there is some real merit to the idea, certainly more so than other (i.e. Living Constitution, etc.).
As a for instance: Let's talk about Brown. I had a Con Law professor in law school who said that one of the weaknesses of any legal theory was that it had to be able to explain Brown in order to be taken seriously. That is, an argument beyond "good policy, bad law". And while I think he is right, I think that underlines a disingenuity underlying all political debates in the country. Why is it so terrible to say, "The result in Brown was good policy, but it was incorrect legal theory"?
Though I may regret this later if nominated for Supreme Court, I think that at the time of Brown, with Plessy as precedent, on a less charged issue it would have come out the other way. That is, if the stakes were lower, stare decisis would have been given more weight and the case would have come out the other way. Of course the outcome in Brown was the right one from a policy perspective. I'm just not so sure it was consistent legally.
What I don't understand is why it is so terrible to say that the Constitutional outcome is not one you like, so instead you are going to change the Constitution. The amendment process is a pain, I'll grant. But I think it's preferable to unelected Judges "reading into" the Constitution to discover the outcome they think correct. The amendment process may take time, but so do does the judicial progress. Remember that while Brown was decided in 1954, with re-hearing, etc. taking another couple of years. The case was originally filed in 1950, earlier in some other jurisdictions.
The stickler is how to square this with the protection of minority rights. The honest answer is, I don't know. I think the idea that the Constitution clearly protects the "right" of sodomy is pretty silly, but then again I've always been skeptical of "penumbras". The real problem is that litigating political issues transforms the debate in a way I don't like. Instead of talking about the merits of gay marriage, or Roe, we start talking in code about "privacy" or the like, and we do so over judicial nominations.
Ultimately, I think we have to agree to recognize a difference between a Constitutional right (no searches/seizures without a warrant) and a policy choice (sodomy should/should not be legal). I thinked we've argued this before, but just because I don't like a law that gets passed doesn't necessarily mean I have a constitutional right to do what it forbids.

Original Intent: The Worst Way Except All the Other Ways?

2005-11-30T17:17:00.000-05:00

Thank you for the birthday wishes. I had planned to take it easy this year--so much for my "original intent". Ha ha. Wow that sucked, even for a lawyer joke. Anyway, I agree with you about a lot of this, but draw different conclusions. I don't think outcome based judging is a healthy way to go about things either. But there are serious problems with Originalist thinking.

One, the Constitution is like the Bible--it means whatever you want it to mean (interesting that Antonin Scalia always knows exactly what God and the Founding Fathers were thinking). Two, a lot of people with a lot of differing ideas of what the Constitution "meant" converged in Philadelphia; consensus was an imaginary ideal from the onset. Three, how do you square a conservative judicial viewpoint with the civil rights movement? It appears self-evident that Alito & Co. would have voted with the majority in Plessy and dissented in Brown.

On one hand, what's the alternative to original intent? If the Constitution's not anchored in something, then it's meaningless. On the other, as soon as you admit that there's no one known correct interpretation, aren't you also admitting that conservatives could very well be wrong? Especially since the notion that liberal justices are somehow more likely to overturn legislatures is well documented rubbish. And it is, my friend, nothing short of dishonest to equate Scalia's quaint take on morality with that of the meaty middle of the bell curve of American populism.

Now, what of minority rights? Minority rights are the difference between pluralistic society and mob rule (and Republican leaders often sing their praises when lecturing other countries). There's a fine line between the democratic process and the tyranny of the majority.

Plus I don't think the 19th Amendment is a particularly illuminating example; as important as it was, it doesn't lend itself well to parallels. Woman's sufferage was an idea whose time had come. New Zealand led the charge and was soon followed by other successful western countries. America was simply keeping up with the times. Now, I'm not belittling the importance of Constitutional Amendments here, but the fates of other Amendments that the American public wasn't really ready to accept were markedly different. The 18th did wonders to help establish an Italian middle class, but was widely ridiculed (and ignored). And with the exception of turning corporations into human beings before the law, Amendments 13-15 didn't bear fruit until nearly a century after their inception.

Besides, do you really want a sodomy amendment, just so we can be clear that consenting adults can do as they please, whether or not they live among prudish fundamentalists? You're a conservative, would you be opposed to a privacy amendment? Would this be because it would infuriate social conservatives or because you genuinely don't think it is a good idea?

The religious right likes to do a little judicial ju-jitsu here, claiming that their rights are oppressed by a secular elite. One has to willfully ignore the distinction between public and private behavior to draw that conclusion. Although I do sense some compromise potential here--we'll allow religious symbols in public, but you have to allow sex in public.

-------------

PS- Concerned Alumni for Princeton? Troubling.

Happy Birthday!

2005-11-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

On a note unrelated to anything political, a very Happy Birthday to Gabe!

What Original Intent means... to me, at least.

2005-11-16T14:58:00.000-05:00

Though it appears at this point we have farmed out the Executive Traits line, I can't resist responding to the point about "if Hillary didn't care, why should we" to ask if that is intended to bait me (success) or a real statement of total moral relativism. If the former, I'll congratulate you on your ability to get me to once again restate that I think it is wrong to cheat on one's spouse.
However, if the latter, I'm not sure how to proceed. If we agree it is wrong to cheat on one's spouse, do we really not care when it is done? How is that different from a husband who beats his wife, but then says he only does it because he loves her, which his wife often supports? Surely the fact that one involves a bruise (or worse) and the other doesn't can't support a notion that they are inherently different things.
The only other conclusion I can come to is that you are positing a notion that (1) it's not wrong to cheat on your wife or less extremely (2) it's only wrong to her. While I recognize this as the same line of logic that argues that prostitution shouldn't be illegal because if the prostitute enters the trade willingly, it is a victimless crime, I can't accept it. Moral relativism may be desireable in some places, but surely we can agree that a difference of "opinion" is unacceptable on certain topics.
For instance, I don't believe killing is always wrong. After all, I believe war is sometimes necessary and I support capital punishment. I'm prepared to accept that some, or even many, do not agree with me that this justifies killing. But surely we can all get on board that killing another for no reason, or for money, is wrong. Period. My view of betrayal is the same.

Having exhausted that topic, I'm eager to move onto the more firm ground of judicial appointments, and talk about how "far right intellectual activists" have dreamed up this concept of original intent. To begin, I will readily identify myself as a conservative intellectual, and hopefully one of the "brighter third". Either way, I will also out myself as one who believes in original intent. However, I think the concept deserves some discussion before it is offhandedly dismissed.
To me, and I can only speak personally, Original Intent means that judges should engage in dialogue/thinking about the principles which underlied the Founding. Contrary to popular belief, this does not necessarily mean that simply because the Framers did not include blogging in the First Amendment, that blogging should not be entitled to First Amendment protection. But it does mean understanding that the Framers meant the First Amendment to apply to more than just prior restraint, and specifically meant it to apply to avenues of inherently political (as opposed to commercial) speech. As such, as blogging challenges the MSM as a way of reporting on the way in which the country is governed, it is and should be due full 1st Amendment protection.
Secondly, Original Intent means that judges should respect that while a particular outcome may be desireable, that does not always give them the authority to determine it is. Judges must respect that the Framers actually came up with a way to amend the Constitution to allow the People as a whole to engage in dialogue about major, Constitutional issues, and have their voices be heard on the subject. As a for instance, when the women's sufferage movement began to gain steam, they didn't pursue it in the courts under some equal protection understanding. Instead, they pursued the Amendment process, and the result was the 19th Amendment. I'd argue that as a result, they were able to avoid the kind of retrenchment and outright opposition that has been the result when similar debates have been mandated by the Supreme Court.
This last point, more than any other, emphasizes why we far-right crazies so respect original intent. In a weird way, it is because we trust the democratic process to deal with big picture issues, like abortion or affirmative action, which are more readily understandable by the population at large. When courts usurp those types of decisions, they deny the American people a chance to engage in the truly great social debates which marked other major reform movements. More importantly, they engender opposition to what is correctly viewed as a decision by un-elected elites.
This obviously leaves open the question of what exactly was the Original Intent? But that is how it should be -- better a debate about the principles which underlie our identity as a nation that arguing over whether or not something is a "super-precedent".

The Alito Bowl

2005-11-01T21:46:00.000-05:00

I don't think there are any specific qualities a President necessarily should have--besides of a vague sense of leaderliness about him--so much as there are qualities a President really shouldn't have. And Clinton's "weakness" was not one of the qualities we should be concerning ourselves with. Hillary didn't care, so why should we? Bill was allowed free reign so long as he didn't embarrass her too much; and that only happened because overestimated the human decency of the Republican attack machine. But hey, if there's a foul, and you've already killed the ref, was it really a foul?

I deny you the legitimacy of your claims against Clinton. I furthermore contend that the Republican Party's behavior towards the President of the United States of America during Clinton's tenure delegitimizes your demand that we respect the office of the Presidency, if not the sad sack of dimwitted buyers' remorse that currently occupies it.

Some people saw the aircraft carrier skit and were grateful Bush had the balls for war--but they were wrong. He had a hard-on for war. Two very different things.

George Bush did the Arsenio Hall fist pump while getting ready to announce the initiation of hostilities in Iraq. He took to war with precisely the enthusiasm of a 17 year old betting on his first NBA playoffs. You couldn't really come up with a worse trait for a president in my opinion.

What's with all the hosannas Alito's getting from the right? Honestly, why do moderates, libertarians, country clubbers and every other disenfranchised tribe in the Republican coalition want a far right loon on the court? Why is this considered a victory for the majority of Republicans who were secretly glad Bork didn't get confirmed?

I'll tell you why. Because far right intellectual activists have convinced the brighter third of conservatives that the concept of "original intent" actually exists--and that we will veer off our course of national greatness if we don't base judicial rulings on the outlandish notion that we can divine what a group of slaveowners--who weren't too up on letting women or the landless vote, either--would have done in the exact same situation if it had happened to occur 100 years before the fucking lightbulb was invented.

Seriously, are pants that hard to keep on?

2005-10-31T16:50:00.000-05:00

Quick summary points:
1) I think President Bush has more moral character than Clinton, yes.
2) I agree with you re: the rule of law. If someone lied about the leak, or what they knew, or whom told who what, then they belong in jail. It's against the law to lie to a grand jury. Period. Doesn't matter why, or where, or the underlying crime. Clinton lied? Bad. Libby lied? Bad.
3) Sidenote: Your line on criminalizing "being Bill Clinton" reminds me of a Chris Rock piece: "They was charging him with stuff I didn't even know was crimes. 'Oh, he gave her some gifts'. So what? That's his friend. You can't give your friend gifts..." Classic.
4) If I'm invited to become a philosopher-king (since I'm much taller) I'll make sure you get an invite. Otherwise, with whom shall I enjoy bacchnalian revelery?

Okay, on to the main point: I'll look forward to responses to my question regarding what qualities we should care about in choosing our nation's leaders. But I think how a man (or woman) chooses to conduct his personal life is appropriate to consider, given my previous post on the changing nature of politics.
I'm reminded of the old adage that "A man's character is what he does when he thinks no one is looking." A man who will cheat on his wife is a man who will cheat me. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but it shows his willingness to cross that line. Now, I've never been married, but it seems like not having sex with other women wouldn't be as hard to observe as, I don't know, not speeding. You just don't have sex with other women. I could be wrong, it could be much harder than that, but I kind of doubt it.
Does this mean we should take adulterers outside and shoot them? No, of course not, but I think it's a fair point of discussion when choosing elected officials. As was President Bush's arrest for DUI. They are instances of bad judgment.

Sidenote #2: I like the appointment of Judge Alito, though I was holding out hope for Judges McConnell or Luttig.

Fool me once...we got fooled...again.

2005-10-25T20:48:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I get frustrated with the whole process and find myself favoring the philosopher king route over democracy. Of course I always base this on the assumption that I'd be invited to join their ranks. But then I wonder what would happen if I wound up on the outside because of some superficial and ultimately meaningless trait, like height (fucking sperm banks). So democracy it is.

Your question about leadership qualities segways nicely into a couple of points I'd like to make. Namely, that any public official who howled about the "rule of law" during the Clinton impeachment, and is now crying that perjury and obstruction of justice are mere technicalities is a rank hypocrite. Outing Valerie Plame was treacherous, if not technically treasonous, and immoral, if not technically illegal. The whole "Clinton only lied about a blow job" line is perfectly valid here. You are a clever sophist my friend, but there is simply no squaring this circle. And really, what's with this insane Republican/fundamentalist notion that morality is to be judged primarily, exclusively even, by two metrics: one's sexual behavior and acceptance of ancient myths?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that Bush is a better person, and a better president, simply because he hasn't cheated on his wife. It's irrelevant. Let's be clear here: NOTHING the right went after Clinton for was legitimate. You don't like how he handled Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Colombia, welfare reform, etc...that's fair. But the 8 years of constant garbage attacks were not. The GOP went miles beyond criminalizing politics; in fact, they more or less criminalized being Bill Clinton. Yet somehow outing an undercover CIA agent who worked on the black market for weapons of mass destruction--an act that any reasonable person can agree ran contrary to the nation's interest--is now just politics, and persecuted politics at that?

Have you any opinion on the slew of recent reports that George W Bush is prone to berating anyone in earshot, that he's perpetually snapping because he can't tolerate being questioned? Granted, these are rumors, but they strike me as accurate for a number of reasons I'll delineate in a later post. Needless to say, such choleric temperment doesn't wear well on a man so long bejeweled in the status of magnanimous heavyweight. Now we're finally privy to his true character--a petulant, sheltered, and spoiled pile of mediocrity.

Who chooses?

2005-10-18T14:06:00.000-05:00

One thought on your quite provocative list: Some of those are legitimate political flip-flops (i.e. steel tariffs). However, most of them are the result of actually becoming president.
For instance, on nation-building: As President, Bush learned that you can't just ignore what happens in other countries and expect everything to turn out fine (Sept. 11 was a rather drastic lesson in that piece of wisdom for all of us). This isolationist tendency of non-governmental conservatives is quite normal, but it doesn't hold up when one is actually in government. Israel-Palestine is another example of this.

But I think it brings up a more important point. (Two, actually, the the second is merely provocative) Let's assume that "promises" and stances of politicians before they get elected are merely pre-dispositions; subject to change when confronted with the actual realities of the situation. For example, in 1935 a focus on domestic policy to deal with the Great Depression was a wise course of action, and would have been an excellent campaign theme in the presidential elections of 1936, and maybe even 1940. However, by 1942 it would have sounded stupid. However, such a statement might indicate a predisposition to focus on domestic issues where possible, and not get involved in European affairs even as things devolved and the Nazi Party rose to power.

So, this means presidential campaign themes and policy statements are really just candidates telling us their predispositions. How then are we to judge candidates? There must be some set of criteria outside policy goals we can rely on. Credentials? of what kind? Experience? doing what? Is 2 terms of executive experience more relevant than 4 in the legislature? Do we prefer military experience? Does it matter how long ago?

I actually ask this as an open-ended question, because I have no idea what the correct answer is. Do we care about morality? How about intelligence? Education? are those the same things? What if the candidate is a genius, with a law degree and political science PhD, but he beats his kids? Or a moron who is universally loved?

Obviously, those are extreme examples. But they are symbolic of an ongoing debate in this country. Say I vote against Clinton because I think the man has no moral character (i.e. cheats on his wife, is a liar, etc.) or was a crappy lawyer, even though he is brilliant. Is that a bad vote? Or I vote for Clinton in '92 because even though Bush 41 has more experience, excellent educational credentials and military experience, I think Clinton has a sunnier disposition and he reminds me a bit of Kennedy? Or because he makes policy promises I know he can't keep? Or I vote for Bush in 2000 instead of Gore because Gore is boring?

The larger question is: How should we judge our candidates, if no politician ever keeps his promises?

The second question is, if we can't agree on some set of standards, and some people vote for whoever looks better in person (a la Nixon-Kennedy in '60) or they've seen them in a movie (Reagen '80), should we have stricter voting requirements? Or move towards a Platonic system of Philosopher-Kings?

Resolute, shmesolute

2005-10-12T21:57:00.000-05:00

While I'm certainly in no position to mock a recovering alcoholic (or "quitter", depending on your perspective), I felt my journalistic integrity would suffer if I didn't give a shout out to The National Enquirer's recent bombshell.

On a more serious note, you certainly know that what passes for "conventional wisdom" in DC is usually more than just a little suspect outside the Beltway. Nuggets like "Gore should distance himself from Clinton if he wants to win", "The American people will never tolerate the legalization of marijuana", "The Family Guy is too offensive and must be cancelled", or "The Nationals will finish ahead of the Phillies" are regularly uttered with confidence at DC cocktail parties--yet each and every one of them has been (or will be) exposed as nonsense. So I'm a little shocked your BS detector has failed you on another piece of quasi-dogmatic Beltway wisdom: That George W Bush is a strong and resolute leader.

About four seconds of googling yielded the following:

· Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

· Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

· Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

· Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

· Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

· Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

· Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

· Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

· Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

· Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

· Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

· Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

· Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

· Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

· Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

· Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

· Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

I would also add that he renegged on his promise to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak and on his pledge of $20 billion for NYC post 9/11. The fact of the matter is that Bush changes his mind about big issues at least as much as any other President did. One could even accuse the Bush team of "paying attention to the polls", given his I-don't-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry Habitat for Humanity PR stunt this morning.

The Golden Rule - He who has the gold...

2005-10-11T17:03:00.000-05:00

I'm happy to talk about the perils of being the party in power, especially when the opposition is so scattered as to provide no opposition at all, which inevitably leads to infighting and excess.
However, let me first comment on your GWB/Wu-Tang comparison. First, I enjoy the irony of either you or I (or any former rugger) mocking anothers functional alcoholism. But more importantly, I find it strange that of all the things you could choose to attack President Bush on, you have chosen to allege that he is a man who does not keep his word. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
After all, the thing most seem to despise about Pres. Bush is that once he has made up his mind, and made a statement on / given his word about a topic, there is no going back. He said we were going to go to war with Iraq, and no amount of criticism or political damage has led him to pull back. He said we would stay until the end, and so far it looks like we will. Contrast this with Pres. Clinton's pseudo-military responses in Bosnia and Rwanda. Or take his stance on tax cuts, Social Security, stem cell research. The list goes on and on. If you want to attack his credentials as a small government Republican, that is fair game. Though since I don't think he ever claimed to be one as such, I'm not sure it is a fair criticism.

Having gotten that off my chest, let's turn to the "cesspool of corruption" you accuse the Republican party of being. Tom DeLay got indicted by a Democrat Prosecutor whose charges were so weak that he couldn't get an indictment on one of his three charges. As a former prosecutor who has participated in grand jury indictments, let me say that the old adage that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich is, if anything, an understatement. Failing to get an indictment is the equivalent of striking out in tee-ball. It happens, but when it does it is just pathetic.
What else? Oh, Bill Frist selling family stock in preparation for a presidential run in 2008 that everyone knew was coming, then having it look like insider trading when the stock took a dip a week later. Let's see what the SEC investigation reveals, but given the amount of money Frist made compared with his already substantial networth, I can't imagine anyone who made it through med school is that stupid. (Though given that Joon will soon be an MD, I could be wrong. Seriously, Joon a doctor? Does that scare anyone else?)
However, my dismissal of these two charges should not be read to discount the very real possibility that Gabe raises. As with the Democrats in the late 80's and early 90's, continued dominance by one party can lead to some very real governmental excess. Fortunately for the American People, when such excess becomes... well, excessive... the other party can highlight it and regain control (see The Contract With America).

George W. Duvalier

2005-10-03T19:46:00.000-05:00

Thank you, it's nice to be back. I was hoping you'd pick up on my currency concerns, and a little worried you'd bring up sanctions. In fact, I knew that would come back to bite me in the ass the second I wrote it.

Truthfully I never gave sanctions a second thought until college, where we both had our appetites ruined by life-sized photos of malnourished Iraqi children being brandished by guilt-ridden, trust-fund laden malcontents in front of the dining hall. Although perhaps I shouldn't question their tactics, since I now share their views. Sanctions have proven themselves to be both morally indefensible and completely counter-productive. But it added some padding to the paragraph, so I wrote it anyway. And it doesn't really matter, since the argument remains intact with or without sanctions.

My point about ruining the prestige of the dollar was not based on any technical economic analysis. I'm cognizant of the Euro's rise and the gains that accrue to US exporters when the dollar declines. Currencies rise and fall over time and the dollar's current value is not outside the boundaries of reason or history.

But do you remember when Marge and Homer went to marriage counseling, when all the couples were doing a "trust exercise", falling backwards into their partner's arms? Of course you do. So you know that Homer was out chasing the General Sherman, and Reverend Lovejoy told Marge he wouldn't recommend the exercise, even if Homer was there.

Since WWII we've been the world's trusted partner; time and time again countries have averted financial meltdown by falling into our arms. There was a point in time where the US Treasury and the Wu-Tang Clan could both say "word is bond" and mean it.

Well ODB is dead, and GWB is President. The dirt-dog's absence hasn't stopped the Wu from staying near the top of rap, but a promise from Bush isn't worth the whiskey soaked paper it's written on. George W Bush is the greatest 70's era Latin American dictator that ever lived: he appoints incompetent friends to powerful positions, he has a hard on for the military to mask his fairly obvious insecurities, he plays to peoples' basest instincts, and most relevantly, he seems to think he can just print or borrow money indefinitely.

World markets will eventually lose faith in our government as long as this behavior continues. It's not a question of if, but when; and by some indications it's already started. And when that happens--when the world has no more faith in the American dollar than it did the Argentine dollar peg--our affluent way of life is over. Caput, perhaps for decades. Hence, "ruined the prestige of the dollar".

--------------------------------

In the near future I'd like to discuss the issues surrounding Constitutional interpretation in more detail. But for now, would you care to comment on the cesspool of corruption your party has become? It seems that government is exceptionally responsive to the people that pay for it.

Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

2005-09-28T14:11:00.000-05:00

Political Confusion
First off, welcome back Gabe!

Now to the meat of the discussion: I'm not going to argue their isn't certain amount of hypocrisy in those who argue that the war has always been about saving the people of Iraq, who lived in a brutal dictatorship etc. But I find it equally ironic that those who are opposed to the war, usually on moral grounds, argue that sanctions were preferable, and were working.
I don't remember much from my time at Swarthmore, but this I do remember: sanctions always hurt the poor first, and most. Food that is sent to the country? Always goes to the ruling class first. Monetary fines on the government? It didn't come out of Saddam's pocket.
So the true irony of the situations is that many pro-war (mostly Republican) supporters arguing that the war was necessary to free the poor, oppressed minorities, while the anti-war (mostly Democrat) opponents saying, if effect: "Sanctions were working, even if they end up causing mass starvation of the poor". In the word of Alanis, isn't it ironic?

I'm not even sure what to do with this random assertion that the war in Iraq "ruined the prestige of the dollar". I was under the impression that the dollar was still the preeminent currency in the world, and that the downturn in the exchange rate was actually due to the resurgence of the Euro, and good for American exports, lowering the trade deficit. I think I thought that because every major economist said so, but I could be wrong (ah, false modesty)

Next point: The honest conservatives. On this one, I think I have to pull a Judge Roberts and ask, I don't know what you mean by that phrase. Do you mean state's rights conservatives? Because I'm guessing they frankly don't care what happens in Alabama, unless they are from Alabama. Roy Moore is an elected judge, and if the people of Alabama object to his actions, they can vote his butt out. Second, I'm guessing Judge Moore wasn't any more or less religious, or religiously motivated, with the statute in or out. So one can't argue he became more fair as a jurist with the statute out. The primary argument seems to be... it made non-Christians uncomfortable? But the display of the Commandments at the Supreme Court doesn't?
This country was founded by men who strongly believed in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Understanding that belief system helps you understand how the law evolved. It's kind of like learning Marbury v. Madison; no one cites it anymore, but you have to learn it to understand how the law evolved from the Founding. If it makes you uncomfortable, well, suck it up. Seeing two guys (or really any two people who aren't hot movie stars) kiss in public isn't my favorite thing, but I'm not going to ban their doing so because it weirds me out.
By honest conservative, do you mean small government conservatives? Because I think you are starting to see their outrage at government spending as we talk about Katrina and its aftermath. Also, my guess is they don't want the government getting involved in state controversies anymore than absolutely necessary.
Do you mean the sort-of old line conservatives (aka Rockefeller Republicans)? I count myself as one of these, and I'd say we aren't really conservatives at all, at least not in the modern sense. We want government to leave us alone both economically and socially, for the most part, and really only get involved where necessary to protect basic rights. I'm not sure "not having to see the 10 Commandments" is one of those basic rights. Plus, since we already lost the fight about the government not taking over half our paycheck, now we either want (1) our money back OR (2) honestly, to see the government be a little more responsive to the people who pay the bills (which kind of sounds like the U.S. position on the U.N.

The Second Amendment: I think its important to understand how the phrase fits together, and how preambles affect language that comes after it. Split the amendment into two parts: (1) A well regulated militia and (2) keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment describes why the second part is necessary. Would it have been clearer if only the second part had been in there? Sure. But remember, this is in a document with its own length preamble.
Also, why is this the only amendment that (most) liberals want to read strictly? For instance, the 6th Amendment guarantees counsel in all criminal prosecutions. It says nothing about appeals, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to free counsel extends to all appeals as of right. The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall not abridge the rights of free speech, etc. but no one would argue that doesn't extend to the states after the passage of the 14th (which makes no such explicit application). Liberals want these amendments read as broadly as possible, except the evil 2nd Amendment (oh, and I guess the 10th, but that's a discussion for another time)

Functionally Disarmed

2005-09-26T18:52:00.000-05:00

I've come to put this blog in order.

There's videotape of both Dick Cheney and Colin Powell saying that Iraq was functionally disarmed after the first Persian Gulf war. One statement was made right after the war, and the other was circa 2000. I don't remember which went when, since both men were involved in the war and the 2000 election. And you know my policy towards "fact checking". Suffice to say, I'm just going to treat my foggy memory as an article of faith. The point is that, after 1991, Saddam was never a threat to you, me, or Israel.

Was he following the letter of the law? Was he illegally armed to some extent? No, and yes. But so what?

Perhaps the greatest chimerical ruse perpetrated upon the American people in our history was the false choice between "letting Saddam flaunt the law" and this enormous, expensive, and thoroughly bungled invasion. I'm sorry, but this war was neither inevitable nor neccessary.

First of all, just because he was illegally armed didn't make him a threat. He couldn't have packed much of a punch. At least 60% of Iraq was demilitarized by no-fly zones. He was neutered by sanctions. He was monitored by inspectors until 1998. And despite the fact that Saddam and his cronies were flush with cash, Iraq the nation was broker than a philosophy grad student. Kurdistan was better off under the no fly zone, and women were better off under Saddam than the newly ascendant Ayatollahs.

Second, no pro-war conservative has ever thought on paper about the opportunity cost of this war. You're supposed to be conservatives. You're not thinking about alternative uses for that money? Never? Honestly, the people you'd call "Bush haters" think you've all got a bit of a "Dear Leader" thing going on. We'll get out of that feral sandpit half a trillion in the hole if we're lucky. I wouldn't know how to find out for sure, but I reckon $200 billion dollars is already a huge understatement.

What about the second degree costs? Your man ruined the prestige of the dollar. For an ideology so obessed with maintaining the economic hegemony of America, this is foolish strategy. "It doesn't matter what France thinks." "Freedom fries, fuck 'em all." And so on. How can you be so cavalier towards international opinion?

The trust of the spy network? "Screw them, I heard one of those guys took an order from his wife." All to protect a goddamed treasonous felon? What have we come to? Every one of you has spent hours of your life that you'll never get back thinking of why Karl Rove's not a scumbag for what he did to Valerie Plame.

When are the honest conservatives going to jump ship en masse? And when are honest conservatives going to admit that the Roy Moore's of the world are precisely the people the Founding Fathers were worried about when they put the separation of church and state into the First Amendment? "But the First Amendment wasn't written to keep a judge in the Deep South from planting an enormous granite carving of the Ten Commandments at the epicenter of his fiefdom." Yes it was.

And how exactly does "thou shalt not worship false idols" fit into the Enlightenment ideals of the Constitution? This is America, I can worship an Allen Iverson bobblehead if I want.

Speaking of amendments where people willfully ignore the Founders' intent:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Playing with guns in the woods of Michigan doesn't make a bunch of fat guys a "militia". Paintballers face more peril. Are you telling me you can justify a ban on oral sex and birth control, by vote of the legislature; but any laws whatsoever regarding weaponry should be dismissed out of hand?

Anyway, Saddam Hussein was an old man. He'd have been lucky to outlive Castro had we not given him bodyguards and doctors. His sons were incompetent and crazy, respectively. What would have happened when he died? A violent upheaval, some religious strife, disruption of oil supplies, and then eventually a strongman takes over. Christ it would have been terrible if something like that had happened. And don't think we wouldn't have dirtied our hands in that fight, but it would've been much, much cheaper, and a metric shitload more moral.

Big Government v. Civil Society

2005-09-14T08:28:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with Anne Applebaum, but here we are.

Whose Victory, Exactly?
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A31

Last week my son's elementary school raised several thousand dollars for hurricane victims by washing cars. My other son's preschool announced without fuss that a boy from New Orleans would be joining the class. My employer is organizing help for the company's Gulf Coast employees, my local bookstore is collecting money for the Red Cross and my favorite radio station raised $54,000 last weekend. Every church or synagogue attended by anyone I know is, of course, raising money, housing evacuees or delivering clothes to victims.

To put it differently, nearly every institution with which I come into daily contact -- my library, my grocery store, my search engine -- has already donated time or money to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and I don't think this makes me or my community unique. A Zogby poll conducted last week found that 68 percent of Americans had donated money to hurricane relief. An ABC News/Washington Post poll published yesterday found that 60 percent had already donated, and a further 28 percent intend to. Those percentages mean that donors must represent a huge range of political views, economic classes, even aesthetic preferences. Indeed, among the fundraisers listed in last weekend's Post were a jazz concert, a tea dance, a "Christian music" concert and a rehearsal of Verdi's "The Sicilian Vespers." No wonder the Red Cross has already collected more than half a billion dollars; no wonder it was impossible to get on to the Salvation Army's Web site at peak times last week.

But those percentages also mean that it is important not to draw hasty conclusions about the ultimate political impact of this tragedy. More specifically, it's important to ignore the hasty conclusions that have already been drawn, both here and abroad, about the victory of "big government" and the death of a certain kind of American individualism. The German chancellor -- once again using American politics in his election campaign -- has already called the disaster an argument for "strong government." Polly Toynbee, a columnist for Britain's Guardian, declared that Katrina revealed "a hollowed superpower . . . a country that is not a country at all, but atomised, segmented individuals living parallel lives as far apart as possible." A Los Angeles Times article, headlined "A Comeback for Big Government," more objectively quoted lots of experts agreeing that in the wake of the hurricane, the administration will "put aside its interest in small government."

But while it is true that the government's relief effort looks set to dwarf anything it has tried before, consider what the actual experience of the disaster has already been -- not theoretically, not on paper, but in practice. Listen, for example, to volunteers who prepared 92 boats to help evacuate people from the rooftops of New Orleans. They were ultimately kept out by Federal Emergency Management Agency bureaucrats because, among other things, they didn't have life preservers. Or listen to the volunteers who organized 100 doctors to treat 400 sick people at a converted Baton Rouge warehouse -- until they, too, were told by the government to shut down, reopen and then shut down again. Or to the hundreds of firefighters who, according to the New York Times, responded to a nationwide call for help and were then "held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment," while women were raped and lives were lost in New Orleans. Compare their frustration to the joy experienced by 8-year-olds across the country, washing cars for the Red Cross.

By the same token, consider the effectiveness of the relief strategies so far. With great fanfare, the federal government announced it would distribute debit cards to Katrina victims. The result was chaos, anger and expectations of fraud. Quietly, the Red Cross has been paying evacuees' hotel bills. The result is that 57,000 people have time to plan what to do next. Massive government efforts to get people into massive shelters have led to dissatisfaction, delays, long lines and frustration. But private initiatives -- ranging across the political spectrum from MoveOn.org's Hurricanehousing.org, which is advertising space in thousands of private homes, to First Baptist Church in Athens, Tex., which has just installed six new showers -- are helping people find better housing faster. Over the longer term, it's also pretty safe to bet that people who relocate thanks to a church, find a job thanks to a charitable Web site, and get by thanks to their extended families are going to do a lot better, economically and psychologically, than the people who hang around waiting to be helped by a government jobs program and a government trauma counselor.

I'm not saying anything radical here: I'm not calling for the abolition of FEMA, and I certainly think there's a role for government in disaster and evacuation planning. But it is true that the worst failures of the past two weeks have been big government failures. The biggest successes, by contrast, have come out of this country's incredibly vibrant, amazingly diverse and fantastically generous civil society. Sooner or later, it will be impossible not to draw political lessons from that paradox.

Roberts confirmation hearing (Part I)

2005-09-12T11:32:00.000-05:00

Right now, as I listen to Sen. Hatch make his statement, I realized that, while it will certainly mark me as a super-legal geek, this hearings are going to be fun. Notice that Hatch is using direct quotes from other members on the committee, and uncontroversial nominees, probably in the hope of shaming other members into not asking exactly the questions we all know are coming, on topics like Roe v. Wade. I doubt it will work, but it will be fun to see...

Was Butler lying, too?

2005-09-12T08:23:00.000-05:00

While I wait for the Roberts hearing to start, here's an article I came across. Not related to our current discussion, but interesting nonetheless

On Iraq, Short Memories
By Robert Kagan
Monday, September 12, 2005; Page A19

If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.

That's not the way I recall it. I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives. We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources. I certainly had never based my judgment on American intelligence, faulty or otherwise, much less on the intelligence produced by the Bush administration before the war. I don't think anyone else did either. I had formed my impressions during the 1990s entirely on the basis of what I regarded as two fairly reliable sources: the U.N. weapons inspectors, led first by Rolf Ekeus and then by Richard Butler; and senior Clinton administration officials, especially President Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Al Gore.

I recall being particularly affected by the book Butler published in 2000, "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Growing Crisis of Global Security," in which the chief U.N. inspector, after years of chasing around Iraq, wrote with utter certainty that Hussein had weapons and was engaged in a massive effort to conceal them from the world. "This is Saddam Hussein's regime," Butler wrote: "cruel, lying, intimidating, and determined to retain weapons of mass destruction."

A big turning point for me was the confrontation between Hussein and the Clinton administration that began in 1997 and ended in the bombing of Iraq at the end of 1998. The crisis began when Hussein blocked U.N. inspectors' access to a huge number of suspect sites (I'm still wondering why he did that if he had nothing to hide). The Clinton administration responded by launching a campaign to prepare the nation for war. I remember listening to Albright compare Hussein to Hitler and warn that if not stopped, "he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction" or "could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction." I remember Cohen appearing on television with a five-pound bag of sugar and explaining that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Even as late as September 2002, Gore gave a speech insisting that Hussein "has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

In his second term Clinton and his top advisers concluded that Hussein's continued rule was dangerous, if not intolerable. Albright called explicitly for his ouster as a precondition for lifting sanctions. And it was in the midst of that big confrontation, in December 1997, that Kristol and I argued what the Clinton administration was already arguing: that containment was no longer an adequate policy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. In January 1998 I joined several others in a letter to the president insisting that "the only acceptable strategy" was one that eliminated "the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." That meant "a willingness to undertake military action" and eventually "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." The signatories included Francis Fukuyama, Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick.

About a year later, the Senate passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, providing $100 million for the forcible overthrow of Hussein. It passed with 98 votes. On Sept. 20, 2001, I signed a letter to President Bush in which we endorsed then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that Hussein was "one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth." We argued that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." That letter, too, was signed by Fukuyama, Eliot Cohen, Stephen Solarz, Martin Peretz and many others.

I recall broad bipartisan support for removing Hussein right up to the eve of the war. In March 2003, just before the invasion, I signed a letter in support of the war along with a number of former Clinton officials, including deputy national security adviser James Steinberg, ambassador Peter Galbraith, ambassador Dennis Ross, ambassador Martin Indyk, Ivo Daalder, Ronald Asmus and ambassador Robert Gelbard.

I recall a column on this page by my colleague Richard Cohen on March 11, 2003, shortly before the invasion. He argued that "in the run-up to this war, the Bush administration has slipped, stumbled and fallen on its face. It has advanced untenable, unproven arguments. It has oscillated from disarmament to regime change to bringing democracy to the Arab world. It has linked Hussein with al Qaeda when no such link has been established. It has warned of an imminent Iraqi nuclear program when, it seems, that's not the case. And it has managed, in a tour de force of inept diplomacy, to alienate much of the world, including some of our traditional allies."

Despite all that, however, and despite acknowledging that "war is bad -- very, very bad," Cohen argued that it was necessary to go to war anyway. "[S]ometimes peace is no better, especially if all it does is postpone a worse war," and that "is what would happen if the United States now pulled back. . . . Hussein would wait us out. . . . If, at the moment, he does not have nuclear weapons, it's not for lack of trying. He had such a program once and he will have one again -- just as soon as the world loses interest and the pressure on him is relaxed." In the meantime, Cohen wrote, Hussein would "stay in power -- a thug in control of a crucial Middle Eastern nation. He will remain what he is, a despot who runs a criminal regime. He will continue to oppress and murder his own people . . . and resume support of terrorism abroad. He is who he is. He deserves no second chance." I agreed with that judgment then. I still do today.

It's interesting to watch people rewrite history, even their own. My father recently recalled for me a line from Thucydides, which Pericles delivered to the Athenians in the difficult second year of the three-decade war with Sparta. "I am the same man and do not alter, it is you who change, since in fact you took my advice while unhurt, and waited for misfortune to repent of it."

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. A version of this article appears in the Weekly Standard.

"He's your President, not ours" --Dick Armey

2005-09-08T11:05:00.000-05:00

Well my friend, I'm not going to get into a mudslinging match with you vis-a-vis levee funding. I'm familiar with your post, and I've read evidence to the contrary. We're dealing with the labyrinthine world of the federal government's budget here, and as Homer Simpson so wisely put it, "You can use statistics to prove anything, 14% of all people know that".

So I'm just going to go ahead and cede you this point. It's beautiful outside, and I'd rather flunk than do my homework. But I do have the following information from a trusted mutual friend working in Alabama right now:

"Oh... and the "it's the state's responsibility" stuff is empty. The Louisiana National Guard is around the most depleted in the country. My understanding is that their only available unit had been returned just that week. And the issue isn't really bodies, it's equipment.

All our national guard equipment is overseas. So Louisiana had no means to use their guard resources, because they were either in Iraq, or were soldiers 2 days back from Iraq.

So what did Blanco do? The smart thing. On Saturday, August 27, she struck a deal with Janet Napolitano of AZ for Arizona to send their guard and equipment to Louisiana. Here's where things get interesting. Guardsmen within their own state are under the control of the Governor. However in order to cross state lines, they require Presidential approval. That request was sent Saturday the 27th and was not approved until the afternoon of Wednesday the 31st." Maybe there's a good reason for this, but if the dates are factual than this reeks of malice.

As for "hating" President Bush, this assertion is pretty misguided. The only people I hate are Celine Deon and those two guys who mugged me a couple of weeks ago. Although they took my cash and gave me back my wallet, so I'm even having a hard time hating them.

I dislike President Bush. I think he's profoundly unqualified for the office both intellectually and morally; and I think his flowery rhetoric about freedom is rendered empty by his actions. And I agree that there are people whose reactions to him amount to knee-jerk antagonism, but I suspect that said response is really an in-house Democratic phenomenon. There are people who will give him no points for anything because there are so many Democrats who, sadly, are willing to give him credit, or the benefit of the doubt when he doesn't deserve it, just so they can seem reasonable.

In addition, Bush has earned peoples' distrust. This is in stark contrast to Clinton. Clinton did a good job by any number of Republican metrics, so you invented all sorts of phony scandals to attack and impeach him for. Bush is an abject failure by most Democratic metrics, and is treated accordingly. So I ask you, can you really equate Republican and Democratic contempt for the sitting President from the opposition party?

ps- I like the changes.

pps- **Update, I also hate these bastards posting advertising in the comments section. Brilliant assholes, may your teeth fall out and your women become barren.**

New Orleans

2005-09-08T08:43:00.000-05:00

Interesting...

From: State Leads in Army Corps Spending, but Millions Had Nothing to Do With Floods

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01

"But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands."

I get it -- You hate President Bush

2005-09-08T08:38:00.000-05:00

Though I'd like to return to our line of posts down the road, I wanted to make a note of something I read in the Washington Post this morning, and get your take on it: (the article can be found at "Work on Rights Might Illuminate Roberts's Views" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702394.html)

In particular, I was drawn to this paragraph:

Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation, which opposes Roberts's nomination, said the FCC documents "underscore the need for the Bush administration to stop stonewalling and turn over the solicitor general's memos."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what this paragraph seems to say is, "We're already opposed to the nomination no matter what's in the documents, but we want to see them anyway." Why? So they can be even more opposed? I know the rational response is so they could show them to others to try and convince them that Roberts is a bad choice, but is there anyone still on the fence? And do you think for even a second that if the memos portrayed Roberts as a crusader for civil rights they would change their mind about him? No, of course not. Because this is no longer about Roberts -- it probably never was.
I think many on the left, both Democrats and otherwise, have fallen victim to the same problem that plagued many conservatives in the late 1990's. Back then, their hate of President Clinton blinded them to everything else. Everything he did was wrong, or immoral, or corrupt -- no matter the event, Republicans found a way to use it in their criticism of Pres. Clinton. He could have been revealed as the Second Coming, and Republicans probably would have professed to have been closet Jews the whole time.
Sound familiar? It should. While reading the Post over the past couple of weeks, I have come to realize that I'm starting to skip Opinions entirely, and even some of the articles. Why? Because I get it -- you hate Pres. Bush, everything he does, and everything he stands for. But instead of remaining even-keeled about it, agreeing with him where you do, and opposing him where you don't, the Democratic machine has gone into opposition overdrive.
There was even an article today about how Katrina has fueled the anti-war movement. And yes, I understand the resources argument. But the more likely truth is that a group who opposed Bush for one reason is using this as a pretext to further their original goal. I dare you to find an article that mentions how slow the state response to Katrina was. Or even one that mentions that the Governor controls the National Guard -- so any delay in their response rests firmly on her shoulders.

State Government

2005-09-06T21:26:00.000-05:00

Given Clinton's success with socially moderate, business oriented, small government Republicans--why not just be a Democrat? Is it because you're afraid of even trying to do business with the old left wing should they regain control? That's reasonable, since that's precisely the reason so many Kerry voting Northeasters won't entertain perfectly sane paleoconservative ideas. There really is a lot of compromise potential in America. But we need to change the questions we ask.

There is something in the nature of modern business that frightens people. It's sheer scope is somehow unsettling. And now, with the end of oil and questions about sustaining our way of life gaining prominence, the institutionalized rapaciousness of corporations, and their humanity before the law, may need to be rethought.

We are not anti-business in the sense that we are fundamentally opposed to trading goods and services, or creating wealth. But it does seem to some people that some other people have a lot of money, and quite a lot of explaining to do too. There are other ways to create wealth, there has to be. Communism was about equal distribution; tomorrow's about equal contribution, or really the opportunity to contribute. The Washington Consenus has failed. Not miserably, but more than enough for people who don't have a few generations to sit around and wait to notice. Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have the first fucking idea how this should be done, but I am sure George Bush's neo-Ricardian wet dream isn't it.

Back to the issue: State vs Federal government. This is just light years off the radar. Honestly, if that was really what's at stake here, and not defending ourselves from your lunatic fundamentalist cousins and their "Our lives suck, yours should too" revolution, legions of Clinton Republicans would come back to the table, and you could get control of your party back.

2005-09-06T16:51:00.000-05:00

Most of us small "d" democrats believe in both smaller government and a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" ethos. Smaller government is a good principle in general, although our faith in it isn't dogmatic. We also believe that success begets success, and that success begets opportunity. Thus we believe social castes calcify over time, and that that's a bad thing, because access to opportunity should be egalitarian (although not outcomes--there's a marked difference between the two).

The examples you chose as basic Republican mantras are a little ironic though, since the current incarnation of the Republican party believes in neither smaller government nor good old fashioned elbow grease. The first point is fairly self-evident, this is big bacon meets Boss Tweed government at its worst, coupled with a knack for cutting relatively inexpensive social programs for effect. Although I don't fault you for believing GOP somehow still represents you on this issue, since even small government luminaries like Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist remain willfully blind to the very obvious in this respect.

Secondly, the Republican party believes in rewarding wealth, not work, which hardly jives with the whole idea of "picking yourself up by your bootstraps".

I don't want to dwell on New Orleans, but I thought we should mention it. This page should be casual, but not culturally tone deaf. While I agree with you that things have moved along at a reasonable pace after a chaotic start, I don't think that's what's angered so many Americans. There are two problems that are the federal government's fault, and they embody everything that's wrong with the Bush Administration.

The first is flagrant cronyism. "Brownie" is an old friend of Bush's, Joe Allbaugh's college roommate, and a heavyhitting fundraiser. And he may be the nicest guy in the world for all I know. It's irrelevant. Having been a lifeguard for 5 years, I personally am more qualified to run FEMA than Brown. He was forced out of his job as a horse lawyer, so Bush put him up at some government agency where he wouldn't attract that much attention--or so he thought.

The other is sheer fiscal recklessness. Everyone who studies these things knew the levees needed repair, and that it had to be a priority. But, in an attempt to appease the small government crowd with some symbolic cuts amid the build-up to the Iraq war, Bush gutted the requisite funding. Of course, fixing the levees would have cost hundreds of times less than this clean-up will, although probably more than the aforementioned bridge to nowhere in Alaska that doesn't seem to bother you, or Grover.

Liberals are not trying to blame the hurricane on Bush. That's a pretty basic Rove-style misrepresentation of the reality-based community's position. While the hurricane does raise questions about global warming, responsibility to future generations, and the like, they are beyond the scope of this post. But we are saying that this didn't have to happen like it did. Sober, rational funding decisions, in conjunction with political appointments based on merit, not who your roommate in college was, would have saved thousands of lives.

The Politics of Compromise

2005-09-06T08:04:00.000-05:00

I begin with the most recent post, since I think it can be summarized and responded to in one sentence each: Democrats are blaming Bush for Katrina (or to be fair, be slow to respond) (ok, the response may take two sentences)
Response: (1) The National Guard is controlled by the Governor, not the President, so any delay in response is tough to blame on Bush -- though I know it won't stop you from trying. (2) The images on TV are of people in desperate need of help, and the government can and should do everything it can to help; keep in mind however that these are the same people who ignored an order to evacuate, and that the levee didn't breach until the day after Katrina passed, so the government couldn't start working until Wednesday... and 60 hours (Wed AM - Fri PM) to evacuate fully a major, flooded US city doesn't seem that terribly unreasonable to me. (Ok, it was run-on sentence)

But I think this transitions nicely into how I can stomach getting my way 85% of the time and still look at myself in the mirror. Oddly enough, usually I'm blamed for being unable to compromise, and not for compromising to readily, but still...
I think that, even at its best, a political part can't be any more than a gathering of people who, roughly, believe in some of the same principles. And here, I mean broad principles, like "smaller government" or "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". In many ways, the modern Republican party was caused by Democratic success in the 1960's and 1970's. Back then, the Republican party really was controlled by socially moderate, business-oriented, small government Republicans. And, as a result, we kept getting our butts kicked in congressional elections, because we had no coalition. We also learned that the Dems were never going to let us get rid of major parts of the federal government in favor of state control, so we might as well make the federal apparatus work for us. And so on to the present day.

So in the end, can a successful political party be any more complicated than a coalition of similar, if not the same, ideals? Probably not, and maybe that's a good thing, since it keeps government honest. Face it, if it weren't for the difficulty of governing a coalition party as the modern Republican party has become, our control over all parts of the government (what with our majorities in every body) would be absolute.

The Big Talking Point

2005-09-03T17:02:00.000-05:00

History is unfolding in New Orleans. This disaster ties together so many loose ends, so many seemingly random real-world mishaps. Because this isn’t really a story about a natural disaster; this is the story of an incompetent government with sincerely perverted priorities. This administration is a toxic mix of unwarranted certitude and an idiotic devotion to symbolism. This is the final triumph of politics over policy.

I'm all f'klempt, talk amongst yourselves...

The Price of Loyalty

2005-09-03T16:36:00.000-05:00

Are old school liberals better off now? Of course not. Are they really worse off though? I kinda doubt it. They experienced in the 1990's what many honest Republicans are going through today: the cannibalization of their beliefs by the trappings of power. Is it better to have your party or the opposition implement legislation you hate?

O.G. Liberals are functionally neutered regardless of who's in charge, and their beliefs are alien to the Kerry-voting Northeast. I personally have little time for yellow-dogs and the Democratic dinosaurs of the Tip O'Neill era. Why on earth would I vote for a party that's both culturally conservative and economically xenophobic? Besides, I'm sure you're well aware of the unrest that stirred on Clinton's left flank for eight years.

Let me ask you a question. What if, on paper, the Republican Party represents your views on about 85% of their positions; but, you find their positions on certain things to be completely antithetical to your sense of morality? And what of the inverse? Say the Democrats get most things wrong, but stand firm and don't budge on those issues closest to your heart?

At the top of this page you characterize yourself as a "solid Republican", although you're pro-choice, pro-stem cells, and would never stoop to half-witted dittohead cliches like "there's never been a successful government program in the history of this country", or, "the world will be awed by my artistic prowess when they get a load of the ties I'm designing". What exactly keeps you in Bush's corner? Are you sticking around for the hundred gazillion dollar medicare bill, the $240 million bridge to nowhere in Alaska, or the impending crackdown on pornography?

Political Confusion

2005-08-31T10:42:00.000-05:00

While I await my colleagues further response, I would like to make a comment on what he terms cognitive dissonance -- i.e. the stronger tendency of Republicans to toe the line on matters of party doctrine. Having attended Swarthmore for 4 years, I am familiar with having been told what to think, and with having been attacked for having a particular interpretation of The Tempest (during which my upper-middle class white heterosexual professor actually called me "The Man" and not in the flattering way). While I cannot deny, having seen no evidence either way, that some Republicans may spout the party line because they have been inculcated to the party's beliefs, I view such ideological loyalty differently.
In short, I am willing to toe the line because I recognize what my colleague has already acknowledged -- American political parties are most electorally successful when they keep their collective action problems to a minimum. I toe the party line on almost all issues not because it is always my personal belief, but because in the Republican's electoral success I see the best chance of political success on the greatest number of issues about which I care.
If that sounds familiar, it should. It has been suggested throughout our history, most recently by former President Clinton as the reason why the New Democrats and old-line liberals needed to band together to oppose Republicans. They failed to heed his advice, and as a result the Republicans gained control in 1994. I will end with this rhetorical question: From a policy perspective, do you think those old-line liberals who refused to support Clinton in 1993 were happier with the state of government then, or now?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.

2005-08-26T15:21:00.000-05:00

Dave, you're absolutely right about the counter-intuitive nature of my position. We can save the argument about the two-party system being an inherently right, natural, or inevitable status quo for later; for now, the bottom line is that you play your hand. If you throw your chips and run away crying, nothing gets done. I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "'Tis better to rage with the machine, than to rage against thy'n self". But this is a wasteful, unwieldy, exhaust belching, machine pieced together with parts from many different decades. In short, the Democratic party is a beat-up '76 Lincoln Town Car with two different colored doors.

In my opinion, it's time to molt, to shed the flaky, ugly exoskeleton that couldn't win a losing contest with the Chicago Cubs. Think of it as new growth after a forest fire, or like "creative destruction" in the business world. Rapid defections in political parties happen overnight- after twenty years of sub rosa machinations. The DC apparatus is a lost cause. So we are waiting in the shadows, ready to jump out and bludgeon the DNC/DLC to death at the precise moment the GOP finally steals enough rope to hang itself. But fear not my friend, for you will be on the protected list when my people enslave devout Christians to build temples to Dionysius and till the marijuana fields.

Essentially, I believe what I believe, and the Democratic party believes in...something, I guess. You guys, on the other hand, believe what you're told to believe. Which is why so many pro-choice Republicans, and so many whose instincts run counter to our foreign policy toe the line anyway. Your party loyalty requires you to cope with an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance, which inevitably backs you into untenable positions. Hence, long term advantage. I've gotta run, but I promise you a more comprehensive response (read: an actual answer to your question) in the near future.

Third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away...

2005-08-26T10:24:00.000-05:00

Point 1: democrats vs. Democrats
Let me begin with what may be arguably the greatest political commentary ever authored, from that fine source of popular culture "The Simpsons" --
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Now I will in advance agree with my friend and colleague that it is a sad state of affairs when our own system can be parodied in three or four lines on an animated show. But it also forces me to ask him how he can so easily distance himself from the party that represents "his half" of the political spectrum. It is something I have never understood about the left -- that they will self-identify as liberals instead of liberal Democrats.
For all that I would love to get rid of the fringe of my own party to present a more electable face, the half of the political spectrum has always understood that within a two-party system, there really is no place for an "Third Way" unless you can supplant one of the existing parties (absent the defection of a former president, that is). Policy change comes from electoral success, and electoral success comes from drawing your party together, not distancing yourself from your party's electoral strategy.
Gabe, how does speaking for a movement, rather than a party, constitute a "long-term advantage"?

Point 2: War, stem cell research, and the debate over life
I think this portion of the discussion is moving to that great trio -- war, the death penalty, and abortion, so I'm just going to jump right into it.
Let me start by saying that while I am open to persuasion, I think there are only two intellectually consistent positions in this debate: (1) Pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and "pro"-war and (2) the opposite (i.e. the Catholic Church's position).
My argument for this position would be this: Either the taking of a human life is sometimes justified, or its never justified. War and the taking of life that goes with it may be justified to prevent a current horror (think the Holocaust, etc.) or may be necessary to prevent such an action in the future (i.e. why the US should have gone into Rwanda sooner, Darfur sooner, etc.). Obviously, the first case makes an easier justification since the harm being prevented is immediately apparent, whereas in the second case it may never become apparent, since a disaster averted before it begins is a disaster that never occurs. (Why the film "Minority Report" presented such an interesting question)
As to the abortion debate: I don't agree with those who feel that life begins at conception. But in fairness, if I did, a pro-life stance would be the only defensible position. If a 2-month old fetus (first trimester) is a human life, than how can we countenance destroying it simply because its mother (or parents) aren't prepared to have a baby? I'm not saying I agree with that position, but how can one who believes as much have a different position? And as such, shouldn't we judge them if they didn't try to prevent what they see as murder?
On the flip side, the death penalty: These aren't innocent people. (yes, I know the debate about the number of people freed from jail and death row. But since there is no serious evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed in the modern era, I view it as proof that the system works, albeit sometimes slowly and imperfectly). I don't think I need to go too much further into it on this post, since I suspect we will come back to it in a while.

Jim Jeffords? That is so last term.

2005-08-25T19:57:00.000-05:00

While I enjoy both devouring the veal-like flesh of the unborn and critiquing the grammar of others, there are bigger fish to fry here. I can count, and am well aware that the Democrats are not in the majority. But for the record, "we" are only democrats with a lower-case "d". I speak for a movement, not a party, not that party anyway. That's really the rub here; and that's our long-term advantage.

The Democrats in Washington have earned your incessant lampooning. You couldn't fictionalize a more vicious intellectual widow maker. They more or less stand for the right things, but only in opposition to you guys. They most assuredly do not speak for the Bush-hating demographic in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, just for starters. Basically, they suck, the writing's on the wall, and you can't regroup without cutting ties first anyway.

Mark my words, you guys will not sever well from your victory umbilical cord. See, your party's betrayed you too. Probably worse. You can't tell me part of you isn't seriously concerned about that guy, that our doubts aren't just a wee bit justified, no? And let me ask you this: what would've happened if Michael Moore had called for the assassination of Vicente Fox? What if it was 1999 and people in the Clinton Administration slapped him on the wrist with a wink and a nod? Just asking.

But seriously, the Republican Party is a trainwreck waiting to happen. You are trapped in the political parallel of irrational exuberance. The house I grew up in isn't worth $700,000, but it is; the Christian Right isn't right about everything, but it is. My point about the war versus stem cells wasn't about the nature of our particular parliamentary system, although I did appreciate your nod to the inherent messiness of this process. No, I'm talking about justification, not just winning.

It is, on it's face, absurd to declare war (war?!) a less pressing moral problem than stem-cell research. Y'all seemed to think that, if honest internal calculations rendered this war "just", you were entitled to surrender to your bloodlust and enjoy it like a football game. But even with honest internal calculations the only way to justify this war is if the potential long-term benefits outweigh the potential long term risks. Well, if there's a better candidate to pass precisely that moral standard than stem-cell research, I'd like to hear it. Everyone's "supposed" to find war lamentable, while at least 60% of this country thinks stem-cell research is probably a fundamentally good thing. Where do you get off even equalizing our respective outrages, let alone pretending your case has more gravity?

Political Confusion

2005-08-25T11:58:00.000-05:00

Having just received word that my left-wing blogging buddy is ready to go, let the blogging begin. Our first topic, suggested from the left, is:
"Some people are so profoundly offended by
stem-cell research that the government can't even
help fund it, since there's no way to guarantee
that those peoples' tax dollars wouldn't be spent
on something they find so immoral. Yet the 40% of
this country that opposed the war from day one are
entitled to no similar recourse."

Unfortunately, this is just two examples of the many ways in which the oddities of collective action rear its ugly head. A few others: people who send their kids to private school have to continue to pay those part of their property taxes which fund public schools; the one U.S. Senator who voted against declaring war in World War II didn't have to go live in Germany; everyone who voted for John Kerry still has to have President Bush as their President (which I am sure will bring a bitter/sarcastic respone).
This isn't a good answer to the problem, except to say that sometimes that is how democracy works. However, I would note the difference between the two. The reason stem-cell research funding is being blocked is because a (apparently) majority is Congress is opposed. Though I am personally in favor of stem-cell research, with Republicans controlling Congress there isn't a majority to push for the funding. On the flip side, most of the people who are opposed to the war are Democrats. If Democrats were the majority in Congress, they could deny funding. (Though my guess is that wouldn't happen -- remember how many of them voted for the action in the first place, and how hard it is to get elected in most districts if you are perceived as "weak")
So, my answer to my very frustrated friend Gabe is -- get a majority elected, and you can kill all the potential babies you want!

In the beginning...

2005-08-24T14:16:00.000-05:00

Welcome to what will hopefully become a blog which crosses the aisle more frequently than Jim Jeffords when he has an agenda to push. For now, we have only two posters, myself and a very liberal friend of mine from Swarthmore. As time goes on, we hope to add even more from both sides of the spectrum, to both comment on current events and hurl abuse at each other. We'll see how it goes.