They are very different in their blogging style and approach to issues, but what they all have in common is that they think thoroughly about every issue before writing, and most importantly (at least to me), never spew predictable opinions reflexively or out of some partisan obligation. It's great for me, and for this blog's readers, to know that on the days I can't blog here, there will be high-quality and provocative posts.
Regarding the book, How Would a Patriot Act? debuted this weekend at #10 on the Washington Post's Washington area Best Seller list (under Paperback Nonfiction).
(2) I have a lot to say about the Supreme Court's 5-4 travesty yesterday in Garcetti v. Ceballos (.pdf), which severely limited the First Amendment protections available to public employees/whistleblowers when speaking in their "official capacity." I hope to post about this later today, but may not be able to until tomorrow. In the meantime, Marty Lederman has a typically thorough discussion of the legal issues relevant to the decision, and Jack Balkin has posted a broad analysis of its legal implications.
This is not as politically charged an issue as it might seem at first glance. This has been a messy doctrinal area in the Court's jurisprudence for some time now, and the issues the Court had to resolve don't really have a direct relationship to the whistleblower issues which have caused political controversy of late. And the ruling affects only First Amendment protections for whistleblowers, not statutory rights. Nonetheless, the instincts of the majority (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) to strip whistleblowers and other public employees of constitutional protection is significant, and is an arguably ominous sign of things to come . That's particularly true when it appears that this case would have gone the other way before Alito took O'Connor's seat. I will write more on this later.
(3) Last week, the Bush administration normalized diplomatic relations with Libya -- and is soon to remove them from the list of terrorist countries for the first time since 1979 -- despite the fact that that Libya's internal repression is among the worst in the world and it is about as far away from democratizing as a country can be. All of those pro-Libya actions are direct and glaring contradictions of our supposed foreign policy principle of only supporting countries which provide democracy and freedom to their citizens (although, purely coincidentally, Libya has developed superb relations with international oil companies).
In virtually every Middle Eastern country, we seem to be acting as contrary to our ostensible ideals as possible -- including our increased support for Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan despite his increasing stranglehold on that country's democratic processes, our strengthening alliances with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and our contempt for those governments which are democratically elected but not to our liking, including Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and even the government of Iran.
It's as though we think that Muslims -- whose improved view of the U.S. is allegedly the objective of all of our foriegn policy actions, including our occupation of Iraq -- won't notice the ever-widening gap between our pro-democracy rhetoric and our actions. Of course they notice. And now, even the administration's most vigorous neonconservative boosters are admitting, and complaining, that the administration seems to have given up on these pro-democracy goals, if they ever really had them in the first place:
But as the US struggles to assert itself on the international stage, the president’s most radical supporters now dismiss this as mere rhetoric, and traditional conservatives are questioning the wisdom of a democratisation strategy that has brought unpleasant consequences in the Middle East. . . .
“Bush killed his own doctrine,” they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.
More than anything else, our foriegn policy is just a horrendous, jumbled, incoherent mess -- actions in search of some post hoc, unifying rationale. We embrace the worst tyrants in China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt; act with hostility to numerous democratically elected governments that we dislike; and then preach to the world that all of our actions, including our militarily aggressive ones, are geared toward the goal of spreading democracy and freedom around the world.
There are good, convincing, legitimate reasons why we should maintain alliances with undemocratic countries which nonetheless promote U.S. interests (including, for instance, a country's cooperation in tracking Al Qaeda activities, as Libya's intelligence service provides). Virtually every country makes its foreign policy decisions based on that self-interested calculus. But we are a country which has now loudly proclaimed that everything we do -- including invading soveriegn countries -- is justified by our need to bring democracy to the world. Once a country makes that the proclaimed centerpiece of its foriegn policy, acting in direct contradiction to it achieves nothing other than the destruction of national credibility and the failure of every claimed foreign policy objective.
Glenn - your Lederman link goes to Balkin.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the book tour? I think I remember just a list of cities you were going to visit but nothing more specific.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnd then preach to the world that all of our actions, including our militarily aggressive ones, are geared toward the goal of spreading democracy and freedom around the world.
ReplyDeleteOnce you've hijacked the English language you can do with it as you see fit. If you define "Freedom" as being subject to house to house searches conducted by young, nervous American soldiers who can't tell friend from foe until the shooting starts and who have no clear mission other than trying to get home alive, then yes, we're doing a wonderful job of spreading Freedom.
Glenn - your Lederman link goes to Balkin.
ReplyDeleteThanks - I fixed it.
Glenn, I'd be interested in some commentary around the FBI search of Jefferson's office.
I'm not fully settled on what I think of all of those issues yet, but one the more persuasive and interesting views is from Digby in this post.
I think I remember just a list of cities you were going to visit but nothing more specific.
I'll post the most updated list of confirmed events later today or tomorrow.
Or did the Bush Administration simply conflate the national interest with its own .
ReplyDeleteWell that's it in a nutshell isn't it. To Bush supporters, Bush IS America. To Bush detractors, Bush is the antithesis of America.
No wonder we're confused.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDelete(3) Last week, the Bush administration normalized diplomatic relations with Libya -- and is soon to remove them from the list of terrorist countries for the first time since 1979 -- despite the fact that that Libya's internal repression is among the worst in the world and it is about as far away from democratizing as a country can be. All of those pro-Libya actions are direct and glaring contradictions of our supposed foreign policy principle of only supporting countries which provide democracy and freedom to their citizens (although, purely coincidentally, Libya has developed superb relations with international oil companies).
Oh for heaven's sake!
1) Renewal of diplomatic relations was a reward for producing the terrorists involved in the Libyan 1980s attacks on Europe and for peacefully dismantling and turning over its rather advanced WMD programs.
I would think that this kind of peaceful diplomatic resolution without military action would be applauded in these parts. However, apparently if George Bush established peace on Earth tomorrow, you would be bitching that he didn't accomplish it in his first term.
2) If opening up diplomatic channels is not conducive to encouraging democracy then should we cut off most of the rest of Africa, Syria, Iran, China and NK? I am sure that will go much further in encouraging the acceptance of democracy in those nations.
In virtually every Middle Eastern country, we seem to be acting as contrary to our ostensible ideals as possible -- including our increased support for Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan despite his increasing stranglehold on that country's democratic processes, our strengthening alliances with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and our contempt for those governments which are democratically elected but not to our liking, including Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and even the government of Iran.
:::chuckle:::
1) I heard this same refrain in the 1980s about our authoritarian allies in Latin America fighting the much greater threat of totalitarian communism. Back then, I was debating my poli sci professors, who were arguing that we could not simultaneously encourage democracy in places like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras and support those governments in their fight against communist guerillas supplied out of Sandanista Nicaragua. Yet, in the end, the communists were defeated and every single country in the area have been holding elections for years now.
2) It is darn near hilarious that you are chiding Mr. Bush for daring to open diplomatic relations with Libya and then defend two of the worst terrorist theocracies in the world (Hamas and Iran) and the thug who has packed the courts, the civil service and military with his cronies to establish a presidency for life (Chavez).
It's as though we think that Muslims -- whose improved view of the U.S. is allegedly the objective of all of our foriegn policy actions, including our occupation of Iraq -- won't notice the ever-widening gap between our pro-democracy rhetoric and our actions.
You are confusing your goals with our goals.
We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked." That is the left's overriding goal in life.
Rather, we on the right want to actually solve the problem by taking the fight to the enemy's lands and to democratize the region like we did in Latin America back in the 1980s.
Bart said: "the thug who has packed the courts, the civil service and military with his cronies"
ReplyDeleteSounds a lot like our smirking chimp doesn't it.
democratize the region like we did in Latin America back in the 1980s
ReplyDeleteThats why we have such a love-fest happening in Venezuela. Because once you have democracy, the good guys always win.
HWSNBN misses the point entirely:
ReplyDelete1) Renewal of diplomatic relations was a reward for producing the terrorists involved in the Libyan 1980s attacks on Europe and for peacefully dismantling and turning over its rather advanced WMD programs.
Yes. And so???
I would think that this kind of peaceful diplomatic resolution without military action would be applauded in these parts.
Note that Glenn didn't say that this was a bad thing. What he said was that this is directly contradictory to the "message" we've been hyping ... oh, let's say, as a ferinstance, as the third excuse for waging agressive war on Iraq.
Glenn says that Dubya's "foreign policy" is disjointed and fractured (or "dazed and confused"?). Not that the troll HWSNBN, wearing his blinkers and wandering from spot to spot without a clue or a principle, would notice....
Cheers,
We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked."
ReplyDeleteHaving the US 'liked' is a force multiplier.
It can diminish the probability of some conflicts, and can dampen the severity of those that break out.
It makes it more likely that we will be able to call on allies for contributions both military and financial.
It makes it more difficult for foreign leaders to use the US as a bogeyman to divert attention from internal repression and failed development.
It's a weak ultima ratio regum, but it's a good club to have in your bag.
You are confusing your goals with our goals.
ReplyDeleteWe do not give a damn whether the US is "liked."
George Bush has repeatedly said that the goal of our foreign policy is to win "the hearts and minds" of Muslims - that is an effete way of saying we want to be liked. Everyone knows that's not really our goal now, which is Glenn's point. Everyone sees Bush lied about what we are doing. Even the neocons in that article say Bush has completely abandoned his own goals.
To cultist losers like you, it doesn't matter if the Leader lies. But to the rest of the world, it means nobody believs what we are saying. You can say it doesn't matter, but the Leader has based his whole foreign policy on improving America's images in the Middle East.
HWSNBN apparently slept through his poly sci classes:
ReplyDeleteBack then, I was debating my poli sci professors, who were arguing that we could not simultaneously encourage democracy in places like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras and support those governments in their fight against communist guerillas supplied out of Sandanista Nicaragua.
Ummm, the folks that Reagan was supporting in Central America in the Iran/Contra scandal were the Contras in Nicaragua. That is to say, the armed rebels.
As for "encouraging democracy" in El Salvador, that would be D'Aubuisson's death squads?
Proxy wars. So much for spreading democracy. We were supporting dictators left and right down there, as long as they were anti-Commie.
Cheers,
HWSNBN is once again clueless about current events:
ReplyDelete... and the thug who has packed the courts, the civil service and military with his cronies to establish a presidency for life (Chavez).
Ummmm, the U.S. encouraged a coup against him (how democratic...). He just went through a referendum election and won. There is no "presidency for life"; that's what HWSNBN's favourite dictators in CALA were....
Cheers,
I just voted (absentee ballot)in my state's primary election. I'll tell you what was "absentee" on that ballot. Republicans.
ReplyDeleteBart -
ReplyDeleteBefore you go defending the Reagan Administraton's record in Central America, I'd suggest you read "Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter Lafeber and "World in Disorder" by Sheldon Smith.
Long and short of it: a lot of those supposedly 'Marixist' revolutionaries weren't actually Marxist or Communists, save in name and rhetoric. Their agendas were more populist and reformist; they were anti-American only insofar as the US was propping up the dictators and autocrats that were repressing them.
Obviously for an amiable simpleton like Reagan *anything* that remotely smacked of communism had to be put down. Hence our many proxy wars there.
Surely you don't think this is new behaviour for the US? !?!??!
ReplyDeleteNo, but it wasn't all that long ago that Bush was speechifying about how this past policy of supporting anti-democratic dictators was a horrible error that endangered the future of the U.S. and that he would, therefore, no longer continue.
David Byron... The real difference is that America is better at the lying. Especially to its own citizens.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that the U.S. lies to it's citizens better. U.S. citizens are more anxious to be fooled, more anxious to believe "the lie".
Paul Rosenberg brings up a valid point: What is democracy? For many, Islam has within itself principles that are somehow antithetical to democracy. Contrary to this view, consider the comments of Iranian, Nobel Prize-winner, Shirin Ebadi:
ReplyDeleteIn citing the Iranian government's routine censorship of journalists and its closing of over 90 newspapers and magazines in just the last two years, Ebadi has characterized the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism as no different than all other forms of despotism throughout history. She argues that despotism, whatever its professed ideology and tactics, is ultimately self-defeating and that all undemocratic states, like the Soviet Union, are bound to disintegrate as a result of social crisis.
Though democracy is inevitable universally, Ebadi argues that nations must be left alone to experience social crises, work through them and autonomously reach their historical imperative of free and democratic societies. Foreign interventions in the name of democracy, like the US occupation of Iraq, only delay the natural, inevitable disintegration of despotism, strengthen forces opposed to freedom and inspire hatred of external others, argues Ebadi.
Talk of a "clash of civilizations" and "Islamic terrorism" only act as self-fulfilling prophecies, she warns, and those in the West should choose their words more wisely when characterizing violence with/in the Middle East. There is nothing Islamic about terrorism, says Ebadi, and rather than stress how Western and Islamic civilizations diverge, those seeking peace and security are better off focusing on shared experience and points of convergence between cultures, especially at so divisive a time.
From Bart at 11:50AM:
ReplyDelete"You are confusing your goals with our goals."
Thank you for confirming your membership in the VRWC. May I ask what color your shirt is? You'll want to avoid anything brown.
"We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked." That is the left's overriding goal in life."
Only because you haven't been hit with the full consequences of your actions yet. I'm sure you'll have your epiphany on your first overseas trip.
"Rather, we on the right want to actually solve the problem by taking the fight to the enemy's lands and to democratize the region like we did in Latin America back in the 1980s."
I had to re-read that sentence three times, to make sure I wasn't imagining things.
Okay, so your stating 'the enemy' is all of Islam now? Odd, I though it was just 'islamofascists'. And exactly how is a couple of questionable elections and a fractured government in Iraq "establishing democracy"?
David Byron...To put in the terms of the founding fathers -- the country ought to be governed by and for those who own it -- the superwealthy aristocratic elite. Bush is just like the founding fathers. He sees no difference between the interests of the elites and the interests of America.
ReplyDeleteThe founders were a contentious bunch with many differing philosophies and ideas. This is where you lose people, Byron. This is where you come off sounding like the leftsist version of a "John Bircher" conspiracist to most people. That is not to say there isn't more than a grain of truth to what you say. But these have always been competing philosophies here and around the world. As you well know there are more than a few examples of refutation of this hypothesis in the words on many of the founders. Historically these ideas have not been accorded the attention due them, perhaps that lends some creedence to your hypothesis, but it is wrong to assume that "the founders" as a group agreed on much of anything.
And just who after Bush is to blame for this horrendous, jumbled, incoherent foreign policy mess? None other than Bush's most trusted foreign policy advisor and now Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. To put it in blunt terms, Condi strikes me as the quintessential Bright Good Girl who has done very well for herself figuring out what superiors and institutions want from her, but who is utterly lacking in independent leadership capability -- either on her own, or as an advisor to the Chief. Bush has rewarded her loyalty by Peter Principling her into positions at the head of the NSC and State for which she is wholly unsuited.
ReplyDeletethe cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg brings up a valid point: What is democracy? For many, Islam has within itself principles that are somehow antithetical to democracy.
Wingers like to quote arch liberal Alan Sorkin (thinking they are quoting Orwell) about the "rough men on walls with guns". Years ago when I was in college and taking an IR course for my GE reqs, I had the good fortune to be able to take a class taught by an actual diplomat from India. At that time his concern was that the fall of the Soviet Union would lead to a more dangerous multipolar world order. In hindsight, I would have to say that his concerns have been largely borne out. Men like Saddam were what the fictional Col. Nathan Jessup were talking about. I'm sure more than a few Iraqis wish he were back in charge.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know - that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall. We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
The founders knew Democracy can be messy. It's not a "Shake and Bake" package of seasoning you can just open and mix in. The idea you can impose it on a population at gunpoint would seem odd to them, to say the least. If there is one thing that people must get on their own, grow themselves from the gound up, it's democracy, and it usually involves bloodshed. The founders knew that.
From davidbyron at 12:48PM:
ReplyDelete"Pol Pot in Vietnam."
Pol Pot, aka "Brother One", was Cambodian NOT Vietnamese. He and the Khamer Rouge militia only came to power as a consequence of the US invasion of Cambodia in the early 1970s. They otherwise had no links with either Hanoi or the Viet Cong.
David Byron... No. You labeled regimes you wanted to attack as "Commies" to justify the invasions. Propaganda. Mostly the regimes you actually attacked were nationals, democracies, socialist maybe. The real key was "Does their government do as we tell them?" If they didn't follow orders from Washington they were labelled Commies and then attacked.
ReplyDeleteThere is more than an element of truth to this. When Ike snubbed Castro and sent Nixon to meet with him. Nixon said that Fidel was "politically naive" but he didn't think he was a "communist". You would think a famous "commie hunter" like Nixon would know. /snark off.
As usual, Bart's self-serving false knowledge about Latin american history is nothing short of cringe-worthy.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe any South american coutnries were turning communist in the 60's and 70s, you are either being fooled by the most blatant propaganda or actively ignorant. There -were- lots of upheavals in the region then...but then again, so there were in the British blorious revolution and many other non-communist-oriented upheavals in history. People tend to strike out at corrupt, near-feudal, non-representative governments, you know. Imagine that.
In Brazil, the vast, million-man communist army that was supposed to enslave us all unless the dictatorship rescued us was notably absent once the coup was over...much like Iraq's WMD. Some nespapers put out nasty editorials, but that's a far cry from the armed cuban and soviet guerillas that were supposedly about to sweep the capitals.
The US enthusiastically supported the noin-democratic regimes here, made sure they always had good IMF credit lines and loans (the same funds that it made a point to deny to any progressive leaders and, ironically, helped foster all the unrest and anger that swept through the subcontinent).
Every single dictatorship installed here had a MUCH worse human rights record than the preceding liberal (or even quasi-liberal, in Brazil's case) governments. The "you guys were turning communist" gambit is Bart's lonely desperate excuse to believe that the US' actions here were anything but self-serving realpolitik. It's like saying France should be invaded if the socialists win with Segoléne in the next election...which they will. After all, remember the riots? A commie menace for sure! We can give them back the right to vote in 20 years or so. It's best for them.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom davidbyron at 12:48PM:
"Pol Pot in Vietnam."
Pol Pot, aka "Brother One", was Cambodian NOT Vietnamese. He and the Khamer Rouge militia only came to power as a consequence of the US invasion of Cambodia in the early 1970s. They otherwise had no links with either Hanoi or the Viet Cong.
But most Americans think Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were communists. I think that's Byron's point.
LLL said...
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the comments here degenerate into a battle between two extremist ideological morons, David Byron & Bart - little twins.
One thinks America is the Ultimate Perfect Good, the other thinks Amerikkka is the Ultimate Pefect Evil. They are both morons who drone on without a brain cell in their head working.
If America were New Zealand, it wouldn't matter, unless we were talking sheep or kiwis. Being the sole military and economic superpower, (for awhile, at least, even that was squandered by Bush), as Davis X. said upthread, it's acts as force multiplier. Even the slightest of bad actions sends shockwaves around the globe.
The real key was "Does their government do as we tell them?" If they didn't follow orders from Washington they were labelled Commies and then attacked
ReplyDeleteBack when everyone saw the world as being didvided up into two (and only 2) competing camps, there was a sort of perverse logic to this worldview. It's the old "Either you're with us or your with the ******ists" logic. (Choice of demon optional.) With the demise of the Soviet Union, however, the people who can only view the world through a lens of Good vs Evil were stuck with no one convenient to hate. And the people whose business model is driven by that hatred (can you say Raytheon?) were suddenly needing a new enemy.
Fotunately our anti-Soviet ally in Afghanistan was up to the task.
Byron,
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with you for the most part, I just think you unjustly tar some of the founders with the brush you should rightly be painting the living corporatist aristocracy with.
We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked."
ReplyDeleteA benevolent global hegemon is to be loved and feard. If it can only be one of these, it is better to be feared.
Where have I heard something like that?
In any case, why should we piss off the rest of the world when friends, or at least cooperative others, would be damned useful in a "long war"?
aristocrats who wanted to guard their property from the masses
ReplyDeleteActually, if thats the lens your seeing things through, then America is just loaded down with Aristocrats. Even in the poorest neighborhoods, property rights are considered fundamental and even in the most "Liberal" circles, nationalization of private industry is not advocated.
Who among the founding fathers, beyond Paine and Jefferson, both of whom were absent from the creation of the constituion, would you say do not fit the description that I made: aristocrats who wanted to guard their property from the masses.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you go read the first ten amendments and then let us know what rational person could read them and say: "Oh, this is just about protecting property from the masses."
All that stuff about free expression, a free press, freedom of religion, due process guarantees, right to a jury trial, a ban on excessive bail, prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, prohibitions on troop quartering - yeah, just as David says, that's all about protecting the aristocrats' property from the masses. I mean, that's just obvious.
And all of that leaves to the side the unstated assumpton that there is something unsavory about protecting private property rights.
ender said...
ReplyDeleteFart said...
We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked."
Erin replied...
A benevolent global hegemon is to be loved and feard. If it can only be one of these, it is better to be feared.
Where have I heard something like that?
Machiavelli, but Bart fancies himself quite the Sicilian capo de tutti capi and thinks some crime boss said it. Some people might say Niccolo was a crime boss.
Ender... Bart is just a moron who doesn't realize this. Even if he was aware I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter to him.
ReplyDeleteHe's not the brightest bulb in the box but as much as I hate tom say it, he's not a moron. He's just smart enough to fool himself into believing far too many foolishly false and wrong things. If it's good for Bart, he'll figure out a way to convince you it's good for you.
davidbyron:
ReplyDelete[Arne langsetmo]: Proxy wars. So much for spreading democracy. We were supporting dictators left and right down there, as long as they were anti-Commie.
No. You labeled regimes you wanted to attack as "Commies" to justify the invasions. Propaganda. Mostly the regimes you actually attacked were nationals, democracies, socialist maybe. The real key was "Does their government do as we tell them?" If they didn't follow orders from Washington they were labelled Commies and then attacked.
This pattern often resulted in pushing the attacked countries towards the Soviets either indirectly or directly.
Hold on a second. I tend to agree with you here either mostly or completely. I was just using a bit of "shorthand" for the dominant political "philosophy" of the time. Of course, U.S. corporate interests were opposed to communist, socialist, and nationalist inclinations, and the U.S. gummint policy echoed the mindset of the corporations. But they weren't going to frame it as Billy Bragg does (see below); it was "Stand Up And Be Counted In The Fight Against Communism" (as the PSA posters on the buses said when I was a kid).
I'm a fan of Billy Bragg, and his "Marching Song of the Covert Battalions" covers the subject pretty well. As does Phil Ochs's "Cops of the World".
HTH. :-)
Cheers,
glenn: yeah, just as David says, that's all about protecting the aristocrats' property from the masses. I mean, that's just obvious.
ReplyDeleteI think David is right in the following ways: the founding fathers refused to give women the right to vote. The founders were fuzzy on whether you had to own property to be eligible to vote. They refused to abolish slavery.
In addition, they did take a paternalistic, aristocratic attitude toward the commons. That is why there are two houses: one for the commons, the other for the arsitocrats. It is also the source of the elctroal college, which served the function of making sure that the rabble did not gain the upper hand and elect someone that would undermine the ruling class' interests.
You are aware that senators were not elected until the middle of the 19th century. They were appointed by governors; another indication that the electorate was considered by the founders as requiring supervision and oversight.
I do not agree, however, with Byron's assumption that all property rights are by nature evil.
DB... For example when Glenn says things like "there's never before been journalists arrested", and ignores the Sedition Act of 1798 he is distorting the image of America. And this distortion helps the aristocracy.
ReplyDeleteThat is a point I would like to see you address with Glenn. As much as we might agree with you it would help if some folks here didn't get the impression you would like to shuffle them, the aristocrats, off to the modern version of the guillotine. It's a lovely image, as long as you realize it's not they way we, as Americans, want to do things. I don't want to be an "aristocrat" but if I were to kill them all, I just might end up being one. I would just rather find other ways to equalize the differences.
The founders were fuzzy on whether you had to own property to be eligible to vote. They refused to abolish slavery.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it's wrong to suggest they all were in agreement with these things. The simply were not. A consensus had to be reached for the survival of the nation. Compromises were made.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteAnd all of that leaves to the side the unstated assumpton that there is something unsavory about protecting private property rights.
"Property is theft." -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Just tweaking' ya, Glenn.
Cheers,
I do not agree, however, with Byron's assumption that all property rights are by nature evil.
ReplyDeleteOnly with respect to land. A few of the more notable founders were in agreement with this. Jefferson did not put property rights in the DOI. He substituted the pursuit of happiness in it's place. Anyone who ignores the significance of that does so for obvious reasons.
You are aware that senators were not elected until the middle of the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteWe've made a few other changes since then, some for the better and some for the worse. What is vitally important now, is that we not take a huge step in the wrong direction by allowing the executive to claim plenary authority to violate congressional statute when the mood strikes. Once that point is conceded the rest of all that "Bill of Rights" stuff will be nothing but quaint history.
"Property is theft." -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
ReplyDeleteProperty in land is always theft if you go back far enough. My ancestors were not born here. Kuwait was part of Iraq once.
I do not agree, however, with Byron's assumption that all property rights are by nature evil.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily evil. Not "just" or a "natural right" and rarely for the common good.
Davis X Machina said...
ReplyDeleteBart: We do not give a damn whether the US is "liked."
Having the US 'liked' is a force multiplier....It makes it more likely that we will be able to call on allies for contributions both military and financial.
A force multiplier is something that makes our military more effective or attracts allies to will fight along side of us. Apart from Britain, the Euros whose approval the left seeks do not fight anymore and are not a force multiplier.
It can diminish the probability of some conflicts, and can dampen the severity of those that break out.
The US was "well liked" by the Euros and UN during the Clinton Administration when al Qeada and the Islamic fascists started its attacks on US interests, formally declared war against US calling us a "weak horse" and planned 9/11.
Doing nothing may make allow the appeasers of the world to "like" us more, but its doesn't help our national security against our enemies.
Taking action against our enemies may make the appeasers of the world unhappy with us, but it gets the job done. No terrorist attacks on US interests outside of the ME since we brought the war to the ME.
phd9: What is vitally important now, is that we not take a huge step in the wrong direction by allowing the executive to claim plenary authority to violate congressional statute when the mood strikes.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but a point to be made is that the constitution contains these innate notions of a ruling class that believes that they have the inherent right to make sure that "true" democracy does not take hold. Sure, the aristocratic notion has evolved somewaht into that of a "natural aristocracy" but the idea that the people can't be allowed to rule because they are inherently incapable of doing so is apparent from the beginning. Given the evolution of American capitalism, this ruling elite became one with the capitalist oligarchs.
The notion of an executive branch, with its well-disciplined cadre of ideologues--such as we see underway under Bush--is simply the carrying through on this idea.
Uhuh. And so why are they amendments. Why were they not included in the original constution? I was attacking the founders who wrote up the constituion, not the people who hated it so much that the aristocrats were forced to make concessions. Concessions so easily ignored as per the Sedition act of 1798 which criminalised dissent.
ReplyDeleteYou'll say anything, and interpret every historical fact, to fit into your narrow, anti-U.S., socialist view of the world. What you say here makes no sense.
The first 10 amendments were added in the two years - not the next century - after ratification mostly at the behest of aristocrats like Thomas Jefferson, and they were added to protect the minority against majority rule (or what you call the "masses"). If anything, then, in that regard the first ten amendments are far more aristocratic, not less so, than the rest of the constitution. The first ten amendments were advocated by the founders of the country, and if what you are saying were anything other than ideological nonsense, they should reflect this overarching goal of protecting aristocratic property from the masses. So where is it?
And if you want to run away from the first 10 amendments, how about the rest of the Constitution? Article I governs legislative power, Article II executive power and Article III the judicial power. Reading those provisions and what the founders said about them at the time, one would have thought they were geared towards mainining checks and balances so as to prevent tyranny and absolute rule.
But no - David Byron is here to tell us that the secret, underlying purpose of the Constitution was a capitalistic-aristocratic conspiracy to protect super-rich aristocratic property rights. OK - so go read the Articles I-III. I have, and believe that they are about limiting government power, maintaining supremacy in the Congress, the most democratic and least aristocratic of the branches, and ensuring checks and balances.
So how could any rational person read those and see an overarching goal of protecting property rights against the masses? I'm not denying that the Founders believed in private property rights. They did. But, other than to impress a Marxism 101 professor, what possible ground exists for claiming that this was the primary goal of the founders in forming the United States and writing the Constitution? That's just sophmoric babbling.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteHWSNBN apparently slept through his poly sci classes: Back then, I was debating my poli sci professors, who were arguing that we could not simultaneously encourage democracy in places like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras and support those governments in their fight against communist guerillas supplied out of Sandanista Nicaragua.
Ummm, the folks that Reagan was supporting in Central America in the Iran/Contra scandal were the Contras in Nicaragua. That is to say, the armed rebels.
As for "encouraging democracy" in El Salvador, that would be D'Aubuisson's death squads?
Proxy wars. So much for spreading democracy. We were supporting dictators left and right down there, as long as they were anti-Commie.
In Central America, the US supplied the Nicaraguan resistance and compelled fair elections, in which the Sandanistas were tossed from power and a democracy has ruled ever since.
In El Salvador, our SF rebuilt and professionalized the El Salvadoran army and forced the government and the communists into elections, which the communists have lost for a couple decades now.
The rest of Central America and most of South America followed suit democratizing.
Again the Sedition Act is a good example of what used to go on.
ReplyDeleteA rather compelling illustration of the bankruptcy of David Byron's single-minded hatred of America is that he has to go back 200 years to find a law which: (a) was plainly unconstitutional at the time it was enacted; (b) was applied by a single political party as a means of preserving power; (c) was applied in the most limited ways precisely because of the fear of a court ruling on its constitutionality by any judge other than the most pro-Federalist partisan; and (d) caused the party which implemented it to be booted out of office and disgraced a mere two years later.
The Sedition Act is notable because of how alien it is to America's values and principles, not because it is consistent with those values. It is a source of historical embarrassment and was quickly and potently repudiated by successive American governments.
The Sedition Act, 200 years ago, enabled repression in the U.S. which was a tiny fraction of the repression which is commonplace today in many of David's favorite countries around the world and which has been imposed by many of his favorite dictators. The fact that the Sedition Act is such a notable aberration in U.S. history is evidence of the liberty which this country has guaranteed to an extent and with a constancy unlike most other countries during that same time period.
That's your patriotic side rebelling. It's an emotional atachment to the state. You hate to see it criticised.
Translation - Unless you think that the U.S. is the Root of All Evil and is Worse than Nazi Germany - and unless you care only about repression and military aggression undertaken by the U.S. while ignoring far worse instances in every other country - then you are emotional and patriotic. The only way to be unemotional and free of the slavery of patriotism is to recognize that the U.S. is worse than Nazi Germany and worse than any other country ever to exist, and that it's secret, real purpose is to protect the aristoricatic property rights of the super-rich.
I'll remind you what happened. I made claims about the authors of the constitution and you replied by saying the amendments proved I was wrong. I simply noted the amendments were not in the original constitution (duh) so could hardly be used to argue the intent of those who wrote the constitution.
ReplyDeleteAnd I responded by pointing out that the distinction you drew is substantively irrelevant and that the secret conspiracy to protect the property rights of the super-rich aristocrats is no less visible in Articles I-III.
Those are substantive arguments. You just feel them as insults because you can't answer them.
I'm frankly getting tired of all the insults. Clean your act up; you're the boss here and people take their cue from you. You go down that road and soon everyone will be flaming each other.
I'm confident that my responses to you are substantive in nature. Additionally, people who participate here are adults and don't base their behavior on what I do. Finally, I'm not someone who believes that all arguments, methods of argumentation, and political theories are worthy of respect. Some are so reprehensible, destructive and/or morally twisted that they don't merit respect. Nonetheless, I think the only responses worth making even to such theories are substantive ones, but that doesn't mean that anyone who spouts an opinion is spouting one worthy of respect.
And so why are they amendments. Why were they not included in the original constution?
ReplyDeleteWithout taking sides, here's Hamilton's answer to that complaint in The Federalist #84:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
In other words, there is no need for a Bill of Rights because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal gov't the power in the first place to intefere with them. Another point Hamilton makes in the final Federalist is that it will be easier to amend the Constitution after ratification than it would be to do so before
It appears to me susceptible of absolute demonstration, that it will be far more easy to obtain subsequent than previous amendments to the Constitution. The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State. To its complete establishment throughout the Union, it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen States. If, on the contrary, the Constitution proposed should once be ratified by all the States as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine States. Here, then, the chances are as thirteen to nine2 in favor of subsequent amendment, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system.
...
But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point -- no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.
Thomas Paine endorsed the ratification of the Constitution along the line of reasoning that Hamilton offered.
HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: As for "encouraging democracy" in El Salvador, that would be D'Aubuisson's death squads?
In El Salvador, our SF rebuilt and professionalized the El Salvadoran army ...
Yep. That's what I said.
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteIn Central America, the US supplied the Nicaraguan resistance and compelled fair elections, in which the Sandanistas were tossed from power and a democracy has ruled ever since.
I'm curious how a bunch of armed rebels "compelled fair elections"...
The rest of Central America and most of South America followed suit democratizing.
We haven't even gotten to such as the Argentine junta and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, or the Kissinger/CIA overthrow of Allende, and the decades-long Chilean junta....
Yes, HWSNBN was snoozing, rather than reading books (I have Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow" on the list to read next after Glenn's book; HWSNBN ought to give it a try....).
Cheers,
From Bart at 2:27PM:
ReplyDelete"Taking action against our enemies may make the appeasers of the world unhappy with us, but it gets the job done. No terrorist attacks on US interests outside of the ME since we brought the war to the ME."
My, my. We are on a tear today.
You really don't understand terrorism, do you? The tactic is an indirect one; attacks on the US or our interests aren't necessary when the idea is to keep the US isolated and over-reacting. Hence targets like Madrid, London, and Indonesia, plus the civilian targets in Iraq and Afghanistan; each one cuts into our international support and makes it that much harder to combat the underlying ideology.
Similarly, your point that Al Qaeda attacked us with greater frequency during the Clinton Administration than they have now is no more persuasive. Bin Laden didn't declare against the US until Bush41 saw fit to park several hundred thousand US troops in Saudi Arabia after Desert Strom finished up, and 9/11, like it or not, happened on Bush's watch and in significant measure thanks to the mis-focus both Justice and the Pentagon had.
So, Bart, unless you're prepared to advocate a full-scale pogrom against all non-American populations on the planet, I don't see where an unfinished military action in Afghanistan and a destructive invasion of Iraq (which makes 'Chinese' Gordon's vainglorious expedition in the Sudan look like a sterling success) has actually makes the US any safer.
Glenn and David Byron:
ReplyDelete[Glenn]: You'll say anything, and interpret every historical fact, to fit into your narrow, anti-U.S., socialist view of the world. What you say here makes no sense.
[David Byron]: I'll remind you what happened. I made claims about the authors of the constitution and you replied by saying the amendments proved I was wrong. I simply noted the amendments were not in the original constitution (duh) so could hardly be used to argue the intent of those who wrote the constitution. If anything the fact that they had to be forced in after objections by the people implies the ideas are opposed to what the constitution's authors wanted.
[David Byron]: You replied with insults.
[David Byron]: I'm frankly getting tired of all the insults. Clean your act up; you're the boss here and people take their cue from you. You go down that road and soon everyone will be flaming each other.
There's room for disagreement on the founders; as has been pointed out, even they were hardly of one voice or philosophy.
They weren't corporate fascists, or even what we'd term corporatists nowadays, nor were they paragons of civil liberties. Some stuff was good, some not so good (depending on your take too).
No point in getting hissy and arguing about it; almost as pointless as discussing what a great economist and philosopher Ayn Rand was with her novels and her bizarre "objectivism".
David, you probably need to turn your outrage down a tad; it doesn't help your argument, and seemingly turns people off from even listening to you.
Glenn, David is toward the extremes, but that's his right and the way he sees things; everyone has different emphasis. David sees the glass as nearly empty, but his priorities are different. I doubt that will change through abstruse discussion of the "philosophy" of the founders.
Hell, I can trot out (and usually do, just to tweak numbnuts like HWSNBN) Jefferson quotes that make him out a Marxist; but that does no real justice to a complex man.... We won't solve these issues on a single blog post.
Cheers,
Apart from Britain, the Euros whose approval the left seeks do not fight anymore and are not a force multiplier.
ReplyDeleteThe following are part of ISAF
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
All 'Euros whose approval the left seeks' and who 'do not fight anymore '
Glenn, David is toward the extremes, but that's his right and the way he sees things; everyone has different emphasis.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree. To me (for the reasons Paul Rosenberg just explained in the above comment), he is the same as Bart, or John Hinderaker. I don't question any of their right to hold the opinions they hold. And when I think it's worthwhile, I reply to the substance of their claims. But I have no more respect for the opinion that the U.S. is the world's greatest evil and only about preserving aristocratic wealth than I do for the opinion that the U.S. and The President can do no wrong. To me, they are the same type of mindset and I therefore treat them the same.
To put it another way, the way you view Bart's thoughts about the U.S. is the way I view some - but not all - of David Byron's.
David sees the glass as nearly empty, but his priorities are different. I doubt that will change through abstruse discussion of the "philosophy" of the founders.
The only reason I answered David is because his claim that the U.S. was founded and the Constitution written with the primary goal of protecting the aristocratic property rights of the super-rich is blatantly frivolous.
Many, but not even close to all, of the founders were aristocrats who cared about property rights but also about scores of other political protections. And the U.S. Revolution and the subsequent Constitution are so plainly motivated by so many more considerations than property rights that someone who can say that the whole thing was just a way to protect aristocratic property rights is speaking from a place of highly irrational, anti-U.S., cartoon ideology.
The problem with taking such quotes as you present at face value is that the aristocrats knew they had to "sell" their constitution and put a positive spin on it.
ReplyDeleteThe motivation of the founders is irrelevant to consideration of the argument presented for the Constitution. The argument either has merit or it does not. Attacking the motivation of Hamilton to discredit his argument is genetic fallacy.
Maybe somewhere else?
You can contact me via e-mail if you wish. It's in my profile.
David Byron has his nose firmly up Howard Zinn's Marxist ass with: Uhuh. And so why are they amendments. Why were they not included in the original constution? I was attacking the founders who wrote up the constitution, not the people who hated it so much that the aristocrats were forced to make concessions. Concessions so easily ignored as per the Sedition act of 1798 which criminalised dissent.
ReplyDeleteBecause, for among other reasons, many Founders feared that enumerating any rights at all, meant other, unenumerated rights were fair game for Congress to muck with :
In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he 'wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.' Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers also were skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called 'parchment barriers' against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.
Further, the "Federalists" in the aristrocratic class" were concerned with far more than their mere property rights; they were appalled at the French Revolution and the contemporaneous bloodbath and chaos it unleashed; the American nation was new, and no one had a clue whether it could survive, or whether the pathology in France might sweep up the "common man" here. Hence the Federalists enacting the odious Alien and Sedition Acts - laws eventually turned even on their political opponents. But Jefferson and Madison trusted the virtue of the common American, and indeed, the common American threw out the Federalists; President Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under these monstrous laws; and the Federalist party ended up destroyed. Congress would eventually declare these laws unconstitutional, and they have gone down in history as (timely) examples of how our govt ought not work.
davidbyron:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: David, you probably need to turn your outrage down a tad; it doesn't help your argument, and seemingly turns people off from even listening to you.
I'm simply stating the facts. Please don't try to throw a false and negative charcaterisation at me as if to dismiss my message.
Jes' sayin'.... Sorry it's not sinking in. Well, "go your own way". I may chime in on a few points, but I can't ship out on your boat when you sail it that way.
Cheers,
It was only to the absolute neccessity of establishing some Federal authority, extending equally over all the States, that an instrument so inconsistent as the present Federal Constitutionis, obtained a suffrage.
ReplyDeleteI would have voted for it myself, had I been in America, or even for a worse, rather than have had none, provided it contained the means of remedying its defects by the same appeal to the people by which it was to be established. It is always better policy to leave removable errors to expose themselves than to hazard too much in contending against them theoretically.
I have introduced these observations, not only to mark the general diference between Anti-Federalist and Anti-Constitutionalist, but to preclude the effect, and even the application, of the former of these terms to myself. Thomas Paine, Letter to George Washington (1795)
davidbyron:
ReplyDeletePlease don't try to throw a false and negative charcaterisation at me as if to dismiss my message.
OBTW, I've been flamed before many a time. Part of the territory. You'll need a thicker skin, I'd venture; your defensiveness comes across as unassuredness and lack of substance, rather than conviction. Don't get to hot and bothered by others; it will only detract from your message.
And I'm not offering this advice to "dismiss your message". Just a FYI.
Cheers,
Someone else will probably pick up on this, but I believe that hypatia's chronology of US and French Revolution is off. The constitution was ratified in 1789--the French Terror started in 1793.
ReplyDeleteSo, the extremes of the Frech Rev. could not have been in the minds of the founding fathers, I think, since during the time the constitution was under construction the French Revolution was in its earliest stages.
Too bad, since her idea that the founding fathers used the so-called democratic extremes of the French Rev as reason for curtailing the influence of democratic processes supports my original point.
Hume's Ghost:
ReplyDeleteThe motivation of the founders is irrelevant to consideration of the argument presented for the Constitution. The argument either has merit or it does not. Attacking the motivation of Hamilton to discredit his argument is genetic fallacy.
Actually, it depends a bit on what theory of "originalism" (if any) you subscribe to. There's "plain words", "common understanding", "original intent of the ratifiers/assent of the governed", "original intent of the authors", etc..... There's arguments to be made for any of them, and it's not clear what "they" intended in this meta-regard (or if "their" intentions and understandings", rather than ours, should be controlling....) ;-)
Then you can get into subtleties such as "expressed intent", "actual intent", or "what their intentions would be if they were presumed to be rational, dispassionate, and/or disinterested actors (and parenthetically looking at things just the way we would like them too).... But there won't ever be a solution ... in part because we're all human and have our own priorities, biases, and axes to grind. That's the law. Convince the judge (or become one yourself, and then you'll have no one to blame but yourself)....
Read a fair bit on this in one issue of the Hahvahd Journal of Law and Public Policy (the law review house organ of the Federalist Society) from a colloquium they had on originalism, back in the days they sent me that journal before they figgered out I wasn't going to support their organisation by paying dues and stopped sending it to me....
Cheers,
Glenn...The only reason I answered David is because his claim that the U.S. was founded and the Constitution written with the primary goal of protecting the aristocratic property rights of the super-rich is blatantly frivolous.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that some folks at the time wanted that very thing. A few as much as said it. That's neither here nor there, really. I think the important thing to remember in a general, meta-contextual kind of way is that we do each individual in this "collective" we refer to as "the founders" a great diservice by forgetting that they were all individuals who had as many things they disagreed with as they wre able to agree upon.
Anne,
ReplyDeleteIn considering an argument, the motivation for that argument is distinct from the grounds and reason for it. Too often people seek to dismiss an argument by discrediting the motivation for it.
This is a seperate issue from establing intent when attempting to apply the Constitution.
I should add that in that respect, they were not so different from us today.
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteBank-Shot Quadrille, Approximately
The always elegant "Hypatia" said...
David Byron has his nose firmly up Howard Zinn's Marxist ass
Does Hypatia speak from her own olfactory experience here?
The French Revolution is dated from 1789-1799 To quote from Wiki: :
ReplyDeleteOn July 14 1789, after hours of combat, the insurgents seized the Bastille prison, killing the governor, Marquis Bernard de Launay, and several of his guards. Although the Parisians released only seven prisoners; four forgers, two lunatics, and a sexual offender, the Bastille served as a potent symbol of everything hated under the ancien régime. Returning to the Hôtel de Ville (city hall), the mob accused the prévôt des marchands (roughly, mayor) Jacques de Flesselles of treachery; his assassination took place en route to an ostensible trial at the Palais Royal.
....Nonetheless, after this violence, nobles, little assured by the apparent and, as it proved, temporary reconciliation of king and people, started to flee the country as émigrés, some of whom began plotting civil war within the kingdom and agitating for a European coalition against France.
Necker, recalled to power, experienced but a short-lived triumph. An astute financier but a less astute politician, he overplayed his hand by demanding and obtaining a general amnesty, losing much of the people's favour in his moment of apparent triumph.
By late July insurrection and the spirit of popular sovereignty spread throughout France. In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of châteaux, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear). In addition, plotting and agitation by the émigrés led to wild rumours and paranoia (particularly in the rural areas) that caused widespred unrest and civil disturbances and contributed to the Great Fear (Hibbert at 93)
It only got bloodier and worse from there. Burke tended to describe what happened in American as a rebellion, with the French version as an actual revolution. The Hamiltons feared the latter. But in any event, my point was that the French experience explains, but does not justify, the Federalists and their Alien and Sedition Acts.
And so why are they amendments. Why were they not included in the original constution?
ReplyDeleteI leave this to the historians, constitutional and legal philosophy and theory experts but if you have ever studied contracts in law school you might understand why the constitution has lasted this long by being vague and ambiguous and left open to interpretation by, some would argue, design.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteThe French Revolution is dated from 1789-1799 To quote from Wiki:
We no longer refer to Wiki because it's been swarmed by "right wing propagandists". We call Fidel Castro for the final word on everything.
hypatia: Look at the dates. By 1789, when you say the French Rev began, the US constitution was already ratified by all the states!
ReplyDeleteEnder relieves himself: OT but for all of you here that know Hypatia and her debilitating fear of "commies" you might be interested in this Digby post if you have not already seen it.
ReplyDeleteI think Digby's post confirms why people like Hypatia will always vote for people like Bush. They will do it again despite their protestations to the contrary. They really have no choice as they fundamentally agree with Cheney that political dissent is bad.
Not one word of that is true, including the "ands" and "thes."
By 1789, when you say the French Rev began, the US constitution was already ratified by all the states!
ReplyDeleteBut the BoR, was not.
hypatia: But in any event, my point was that the French experience explains, but does not justify, the Federalists and their Alien and Sedition Acts.
ReplyDeleteWell, we still have to clear up the French Revolution chronology. Be that as it may, you prove my point exactly: there was an "aristocratic/bourgeois" element and mind-set that set the original framers of the US constitution against enabling a "true" democracy. They didn't trust the rabble; that model exists today in various forms--from a media elite to capitalist elite to technocrat elite. They are all trumped, however, by a capitalist system that appears to generate its own ruling ethos.
Maryscott O'Connor and and a number of other community members tried quite unsuccessfully to respond to with reason.
ReplyDeleteDuly noted and good enough for me. That's all I need to know.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteBy 1789, when you say the French Rev began, the US constitution was already ratified by all the states!
But the BoR, was not.
Are you suggesting the BoR is a subversive document? Heavens!
Hypatia... Not one word of that is true, including the "ands" and "thes."
ReplyDeletePlagiarist! Give the proper attribution for that quote.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHow fast the mask of decency falls away when your precious patriotic prejudices are threatened
ReplyDeleteWell you ARE being very annoying.
Since "patriotism" refers to having a group identity and your rants against patriotism seem to be directed at a group, I'd say that your being pretty hypocritical. And as was just pointed out, rather quick to roll over on your back and play the victim.
"Remember if you can't beat the argument beat on your opponent folks!"
ReplyDeleteIrony. When I quoted Hamilton's reasoning for not including A Bill of Rights you responded by doing just what you're speaking against.
David Byron... How fast the mask of decency falls away when your precious patriotic prejudices are threatened
ReplyDeleteI'll just respond to this and then wait for David to settle down and become reasonable again, if ever.
Don't confuse the desire to make something good come from this on going experiment in self-government with blind and ignorant "my country right or wrong" patriotism, David. That kind of thinking belies your professed revolutionary ideals. Maybe you are really just a troll after all.
I would say the degree of flame I get is an indication that my opponents are ideologues who can't respond with reasoning because they never came to hold their position by means of reason.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a much simpler explanation. You are making people so sick because you are so WHINY AND SELF-PITYING. You constantly accuse people of being blinded by their patriotic indoctrinations (a pretty personal and cutting insult) but then whine as though you are a grave victim because someone says your argument is "blatantly frivolous" or some other completely mild comment that makes you act like some sort of wounded victim. You can dish all sorts of things but can take nothing. People usually find that attribute repellent.
And nobody here, to my knowledge, has been "banished." I actually wish Glenn would banish some of the more disruptive and worthless contributors here, but he doesn't ban anyone from what I can see. So we are stuck with your endless whining about insults directed at you while you sit there and tell everyone how they have been propagandized by the Bad State and only you can think and see clearly.
Mr. Rosenberg, with all due repsect to Yogi Beara:
ReplyDeleteCon Law Scholar Geoffrey Stone at the Lessig Blog: Fifty years later, Congress declared that the Sedition Act of 1798 was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has never since missed an opportunity to declare that the Act was unconstitutional in the “court of history.”
And Again according to Stone, The Federalists were worried about the French Revolution and were poised to join Britain to battle the French:
...in 1798 the United States entered into a treaty with England that infuriated the French. Adams put the nation on war footing. The Federalists gave him a larger army and a larger navy. We were on the brink of declaring war. The Republicans were furious. They were much more sympathetic to the French (who had overthrown their monarchy) and much more hostile to the English (who were still ruled by a monarch). It was in this context that the Federalists enacted the Alien and Sedition Act.
It was a vile law, wholly indefensible, but it was not driven by an aristocratic interest in merely defending pty interests.
And at no time have I advocated a belief in conspiracy theories that were not actual. Not unless you mean to include the actual conspiracies of CPUSA members revealed by copious archival data. The Klan has conspired too, you know, and I also "believe in" those conspiracies.
U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq
ReplyDelete"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteMr. Rosenberg, with all due repsect to Yogi Beara:
Berra. The other one was a regular, ordinary, average bear.
Hypatia,
ReplyDeleteYogi Berra was related to Lavrenty Beria.
Boo!~
Just kidding.
Hume's ghost:
ReplyDeleteA[r]ne,
In considering an argument, the motivation for that argument is distinct from the grounds and reason for it. Too often people seek to dismiss an argument by discrediting the motivation for it.
In the lofty and ethereal world of academic discussions of logic an philosophy, perhaps so, but in our more mundane environs, I think not. Witnesses may be impeached, even as to factual statements.
But here we were talking about motivations (or at least that was the gravamen of David Byron's indictment of the founders).
This is a seperate issue from establing intent when attempting to apply the Constitution.
True, I brought it up WRT the "intent", etc. of the founders in the realm of Constitutional interpretation, but the problems are similar here. You may argue that in fact the new nation was not aristocratically friendly or not particularly oppressive in practise (and even here, one may disagree), but David's indictment is as to the "badness" of the founders (and/or early gummint officials). He's attacking Hamilton's motivations, I think, and saying that the expressed words are not necessarily his intent, nor are they necessarily what was understood by those that agreed with him and supported him at the time.
But enough of that. "Can't we all just get along?"
Cheers,
Mr. Rosenberg writes: Your record of smearing the left on these pages is well-known to all long-time posters and lurkers. No need to restart them again just now. Simply reminding folks that there's a pattern here.
ReplyDeleteWell which is it? I traffic in conspiracy theories?( your original claim) or I "merely" smear the left. In fact, I do neither, and do not make claims absent credible evidence about people or mvmts.
DavidByron:
ReplyDeleteIf you had any decency you'd be ashamed of yourself for making such a blatant attack on the character of another comenter.
Sad thing for HWSNBN that I have no decency, eh? But you might not want to stick your head up too high; sometimes I get a little wild with my fire.
Now cool it. That's not an order; that's just reality. 'Kay?
Cheers,
IC that Bart can take the day off; we're doing a fine job of crufting up the thread all by our own lonesome today. Laissez bon temps roulet....
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Ummm, "roulez", not "roulet". Pardon my French....
ReplyDeleteSigh.....
ReplyDeleteI've actually started 3 posts and aborted them while this whole thing's been going on.
The easiest way to stop a flame war is to shut up.
into the muck to make your shitty little character assassination fit right in and
turn into a slime pit. are not phrases that compare favorably to into your narrow, anti-U.S., socialist view of the world which apparently what started all this.
I enjoy reading your posts and I've enjoyed all our discussion about personal vs collective responsibility, but I'm afraid you're bringing this one on yourself!
DavidByron
ReplyDeleteYou can count me among the people who've read your posts with interest over the past weeks. I've appreciated the injection of your point of view in its tendency to draw attention to points otherwise overlooked and/or avoided.
But your free-fall descent into self-pity as documented in this thread tend to undermine your credibility as well as your motives.
And you continue to jettison any conversation relative to the substance of your position in favor of an endless recitation of the uniniteresting and narcissistic details of your victimhood even as people gently and thoughtfully point out how you're shooting yourself in the foot. I have to agree with the intimation above that perhaps you're too young to be expected to be fully self-aware and that a thicker skin is required to engage other humans with a brain and a keyboard.
"In the lofty and ethereal world of academic discussions of logic an philosophy"
ReplyDeleteLet's try something else. Pretend Joe Smo made the argument that Hamilton gave for not including a Bill of Rights. We have no knowledge at all of what Joe Smo's motivation for making that argument is. All we have is the argument.
Does the argument now have different merit than it did before? Obviously, it does not. This has nothing to do with intellectual loftiness, this is a matter of vital and critical importance. Arguments must be considered distinct from the source of that argument. Otherwise we commit the genetic fallacy, and the genetic fallacy is the standard operating procedure of the Bush administration and its defenders. Let's not go there.
If David wishes to say that the reasoning offered is irrelevant because Hamilton and co. intended to violate those civil liberties, he still must demonstrate why the reasoning offered falls short. he must show why Hamilton's reasoning was flawed and civil liberty would be threatened. Thus far he has cited the Sedition Act, which was defeated by the very institutions that Hamilton and co. defended in the Federalist.
They could have intended to create a document that made Hamilton supreme king of the universe, but that would not bear on the reality of what they actually did create. Or to put it otherwise, a defect in Hamilton's character does not equal a defect in the Constitution, it merely gives us reason to be suspect of the Constitution. But it can never substitute for directly addressing a claim or proposition head on.
davidbyron, when I was new to the Internet I was on more than one occasion offended by others' criticisms of my ideas, considering them personal attacks on myself.
ReplyDeleteI've since found it useful (and more honest) to separate the two, both in real life and online. When a personal attack is offered, one can choose to respond in kind or not, as one pleases; when an attack is on the idea itself, the idea can be defended on its own merits or abandoned.
I submit that, based on the tenor of your replies, you've been conflating the two. Not that there haven't been personal comments, but the majority--even "this is a ridiculous suggestion"--are criticisms of the words, not the speaker.
Focusing my attention on criticisms with this in mind so as to become more aware of the difference between the types has certainly helped me present myself in a fashion that gets me more respect than I used to get; perhaps it'll help you as well.
Something to think about, at any rate.
-j
"A[r]ne"
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just glanced.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals (1838)
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's the shorter version...
ReplyDeleteNot known for shortwindedness, me.
Mr. Rosenberg: Both.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a mere conspiracy theory to claim there is a ring of pedophiles operating on the Internet, if there in fact is such a ring and dispositive evidence for it; it is than a fact of conspiracy. Nor is it a smear to identify John Doe as a pedophile if copious FBI and other documents identify Doe as such. So, if you want to argue that I engage in conspiracy "theories" and "smears" in such fact-based contexts, then I do.
Hume's ghost:
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with intellectual loftiness, this is a matter of vital and critical importance. Arguments must be considered distinct from the source of that argument.
Look, I like spending time up there; the terrain is more predictable and to my liking. I'm a closet (well, maybe not all that well closeted at times) nerd, and find computers more comprehensible than people. In the stratosphere of logical rhetoric, the arguments are easier to "win" or dispose of. But back in the real world: There are not always any pat answers, "facts" are malleable (if not invented) and not assumed and agreed to, and the "argument" gets a bit more personal ... and messy. Motive is something that you should take into consideration. So is experience, bias, and any number of things that really don't exist on the lofty plane.
Yes, an "argument" is as good as the facts and logic behind it, and it doesn't matter who makes it ... assuming everything else is the same. But everything is not the same once you consider the "argument" in the greater context of relations to other such arguments, the character of the proponents, their reputation for straight-forwardness and honesty, and such. The legal profession recognises this; if it was just the "argument" (and the "facts" were obvious and not needing to be introduced through the testimony of a person), there'd be no need for courts. Or blogs, for that matter.
But we're getting side-tracked: David Byron's complaint about Hamilton was not about what he said, but rather about what he (purportedly) wanted. You are taking Hamilton at face-value (and I'd also note that a fair bit of the quote you give of his is opinion and not uncontroverted fact). You're talking past one another.
I don't think we disagree, you and I. We're also talking about different questions.
Cheers,
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteMr. Rosenberg: Both.
It isn't a mere conspiracy theory to claim there is a ring of pedophiles operating on the Internet, if there in fact is such a ring and dispositive evidence for it; it is than a fact of conspiracy. Nor is it a smear to identify John Doe as a pedophile if copious FBI and other documents identify Doe as such. So, if you want to argue that I engage in conspiracy "theories" and "smears" in such fact-based contexts, then I do.
There are a conspiracy of satan worshippers, too. Don't forget that, or is that "hysteria du jour" passe?
The perceived "increase" in The The Trade in Child Pornography
ReplyDeletewas as much a function of a change in the laws regulating such behaviors as anything. It is a "manufactured crisis" like witch hunts, commies under every bed and cults of satanists ritually killing babies. The number of pedophiles has remained constant since the days of Horatio Alger, whom the NYC chapter of NAMBLA is named after. They do have the internet today. It's just a new form of playground. Will and Ariel Durant never went to prison for doing what most of the teachers going to prison today have done.
Two things:
ReplyDelete1) Thank you all. I learned a lot from this thread. It's one of the reasons I love this blog.
2) DavidByron: rothbard (6:03) said it better than I could. Please do a little self-examination. It all started when Glenn replied to your post and you claimed to be insulted. I saw no insult there; only a substantive rebuttal to your post.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteIC that Bart can take the day off; we're doing a fine job of crufting up the thread all by our own lonesome today. Laissez bon temps roulet....
He's probably in court picking some poor guy's pocket for violating the very "nanny state" laws he rails against. There is a similar dynamic of "manufactured hysteria" there as well.
You are taking Hamilton at face-value (and I'd also note that a fair bit of the quote you give of his is opinion and not uncontroverted fact).
ReplyDeleteI'm not taking Hamilton at face-value. I'm taking the argument at face-value. If I was asked to evaluate it I would disagree with Hamilton regarding the necessity of a Bill of Rights, and agree with him regarding the second point about the amendment's being added later. We do know that he was correct, there.
David has apparently left the building which is a shame because I actually was interested in discussing whether or not the founding fathers were "elitist". I was going to argue for the affirmative but then go on to state that that wasn't such a bad thing because after all there is no shortage of idiots in the world.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of sedition...
ReplyDeleteTry this...Ala. candidates revive judicial debate
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
(via Think Progress via RawStory) From Newsmax:
ReplyDeleteDespite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.
Now if only all those pundits, politicos, and media types who spout this tripe would just move to Iraq.
armagednoutahere:
ReplyDeleteArne, is that [HJLPP] available online somewhere? I'd love to have a look at it.
Dunno. Doubt it. That issue is quite old (and I think my sweetie made me throw the H/C/ away along with my other old and dear magazines....). *sigh*
But you could check out the Federalist Society web page and see if they have any on-line articles. It wasn't a bad symposium; they did bring in a range of participants, even a couple libs....
Cheers,
Anon:
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli, but Bart fancies himself quite the Sicilian capo de tutti capi and thinks some crime boss said it. Some people might say Niccolo was a crime boss.
I know my sources, now I just need to get my sarcasm across. ;)
Ender writes: You want to separate the two so badly but you can't. You and EWO both. You will indeed vote for the next version of BushCo (that is if we are ever given the opportunity to vote again) because to you "democracy" = "unfettered capitalism." There is no other way. Since the liberal pinko's are the worse of the two evils you are left with no other choice...lol.
ReplyDeleteI don't even know what you are talking about, and EWO and I disagree about some rather substantial issues. It is simply false that I believe "democracy = unfettered capitalism." I do not worship at the altar of democracy, and endorse it only to the extent that the rights of minorities are vouchsafed, since majorities can be tyrannical. When such rights are protected, and there is a stable rule of law, democracy is the fairest and best method for the peaceful transition of political power. Had the Schiavo travesty occurred prior to the '04 election, I would not have voted for Bush, and now that I fully see how corrupt the Bush/Frist GOP is, and how dangerous to the fundamental basis of our Republic, I have repeatedly said I would endorse Russ Feingold for president in '08, notwithstanding his eponymous campaign finance bill that I detest, and that he swings too far left for me. But he has integrity and intelligence, a fierce dedication to (most) civil liberties and that is what our nation needs now more than anything else,
Further, I am not so much a "capitalist" as a "free marketeer."
It is so perverse that I am regularly accused of demonizing or smearing leftists here and elsewhere, when I virtually always supply support for my claims, and yet so many of my detractors routinely mischaracterize my views with no basis in reality, turn them into cartoons, and blatantly charge me with positions I not only have never taken, but which I abhor.
I just wanted to say thanks Glenn for lining up Hume's Ghost (and looks like as a regular!) and Anonyous Liberal -- I enjoy reading them both -- I'm not a regular at Mahablog, so I can't opine, but look forward to reading Barbara O'Brien's contributions.
ReplyDeleteI've seen David Byron's comments at other blogs. I must say that he was treated much better here on these threads than at those others -- particularly ATB(click through to see the art that tops her post about David) -- and I truly think it is reflective of the quality of the host and commenters. I hope he comes back (yes, and Bart, too) just like hypatia has shown up today. I was worried there for a bit that Hypatia had taken an extended leave.
Lastly, as to the third point Glenn made, I wonder how India works into this strategy (rather lack thereof) WRT nuclear capability. I'll have to go look up the references, but didn't Bush on his last trip to Asia give some fairly broad encouragement to India's nuclear weapons program with very little oversight entailed? Also, I wonder what kind of authentication/gurantee was required of Lybia to assure that it had, in fact, given up all WMD?
the MAHABLOG LOL or make that:
ReplyDeleteMA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA MA HA
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteBart - Before you go defending the Reagan Administraton's record in Central America, I'd suggest you read "Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter Lafeber and "World in Disorder" by Sheldon Smith.
Long and short of it: a lot of those supposedly 'Marixist' revolutionaries weren't actually Marxist or Communists, save in name and rhetoric. Their agendas were more populist and reformist; they were anti-American only insofar as the US was propping up the dictators and autocrats that were repressing them.
Please. The Sandanistas and El Salvadoran guerillas were supplied with weapons by the USSR through Cuba. The Cuban secret police trained the Sandanista secret police. None of these groups of "reformers" ever won a fair and open election. They took power and attempted to take power by force of Soviet Arms. When elections were held, they lost.
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit Jimmy Carter
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDelete: In Central America, the US supplied the Nicaraguan resistance and compelled fair elections, in which the Sandanistas were tossed from power and a democracy has ruled ever since.
I'm curious how a bunch of armed rebels "compelled fair elections"...
The Sandanistas hoped to undercut Nicaraguan and US support for the resistance by hauling in Jimmy Carter to give his stamp of approval on an open and fair election. Unfortunately for the Sandanistas, Carter's people did just that. To the amazement of Carter and the Sandanistas, the Nicaraguans voted out Ortega & Co handily for the political wing of the resistance and never looked back.
Bart: The rest of Central America and most of South America followed suit democratizing.
We haven't even gotten to such as the Argentine junta and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, or the Kissinger/CIA overthrow of Allende, and the decades-long Chilean junta....
Are you having a hard time distinguishing between the 80s which I was discussing and the 70s which you are raising as a red herring?
And all of that leaves to the side the unstated assumpton that there is something unsavory about protecting private property rights.
ReplyDeleteWell, Glenn beat me to it once again.
It appears, David Byron, that something inside you has a strong visceral dislike of the concept of private property.
Going further, you appear to hate the very notion of "aristocrats."
Here's my own view: I love aristocrats if they are rational, fair, decent, just people with a profound respect for the rights of others.
It's even possible that hundreds of years ago "aristocrats", as a defining term for a class of people, had better educations and a more sophisticated familiarity with the nuances associated with legal theories to do with different systems of government.
I also love ditch diggers if they are rational, fair, decent, just people with a profound respect for the rights of others.
It's the policies and intellectual positions and the morality of individuals (and in political terms these are often expressed in the system of codified laws they endorse) which are on the table, not the "class" of the Founding Fathers and the Framers.
If every person who wrote our Consitution was a penniless, drugged out jazz saxophone player with thirty wives and two heads, I would still look to the words in the Constitution to evaluate them and form my own opinion of what I agree with and what I don't. And I would say "Job well done. Not perfect, but well done" to whomever worked to produce the Constitution.
Obviously I am not including the one issue of slavery, which in my own view was in itself so evil that it almost (one could argue there's no "almost" there) counterbalances the good in the entire rest of the Constitution. Fortunately, that's been fixed.
May I respectfully suggest that from now on you concentrate on the Constitution and what you don't like about it rather than this continous railing against the "class" of people who wrote it.
Also, I have asked you before and never saw an answer (maybe I missed it---sorry) which country you are choosing to make your home.
And do you like that country's system of government better than ours? And which other countries in the world do you admire in terms of their codified system of laws?
The people who frequent this site all share one similarity: we are patriotic Americans who care about this country.
That's why we are among the most dismayed people in this nation to see what is now happening.
Maybe things have always been rotten in the State of Denmark, as you say, but now it is 2006 and we have to view the current situation and see if it can, through the efforts of a collection of concerned citizens, be fixed.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 2:27PM:"Taking action against our enemies may make the appeasers of the world unhappy with us, but it gets the job done. No terrorist attacks on US interests outside of the ME since we brought the war to the ME."
My, my. We are on a tear today.
You really don't understand terrorism, do you?
I am not discussing "terrorism." As you correctly observed, terrorism is merely a tactic. The "War against Terror" is a marketing slogan, not an accurate description of our war against Islamis Fascism, which is another in a line of totalitarianisms we have fought over the past century.
Similarly, your point that Al Qaeda attacked us with greater frequency during the Clinton Administration than they have now is no more persuasive.
I never said anything like that.
As to the Clinton Administration, I merely noted that doing nothing to get the Euros to like us did not stop our enemies.
As to the Bush Administration post 9/11, I stated that we have limited al Qaeda's international reach against us by bringing the war to their countries. In fact, al Qaeda is attacking us more frequently in the ME as we engage and kill them off.
I found the reference about India -- it's here.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
Under the agreement, India will classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as being for civilian use, and thus open to inspection.
I found Rice's explanations on The News Hour to be enlightening and echoing of what was said pre-Iraq but with a twist. She pointed blame for the situation in the Middle East at Iran. She implied that the "troubles" in Iraq are the fault of Iran.
It is posturing, I know. The double standard is being put in place and the march on to attacking Iran seems to be on track.
David, I skimmed your cut'n paste. Using Rhode Island as an example is not quite fair. Do you recall how R.I. was founded and who was a major part of that founding?
Looking back at the beginning of a relatively new concept of governance and critiquing it is very easy. All of the ammunition you need is there.
Making a difference in lives, here and now, is much more difficult.
I would suggest that before you give counsel on the regulation of blog comments that you gain a bit of experience.
That goes for your political comments as well. If you have lived in a purely democratic country, good for you -- you can criticize from afar and offer nothing. If you have never struggled to reform your own government, good for you. If you want to change minds, open your own.
davidbyron: The aristocrats had destroyed the power of the people they feared, just as they had put down the revolt in Massachusets.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quotes...
Mr. Rosenberg writes: It's just that you usually smear folks who aren't here to defend themselves. I have stood up both for those you have unfairly attacked,
ReplyDeleteFalse. I have not "smeared" anyone. Previously you had said I smeared you, which I denied and you could provide no examples of my having dones so. You claimed I smeared Democrats qua Democrats, which I have never done; I have done the opposite.
Anyone I have "attacked" who is not on this board, I have provided evidence for said attacks. It is not a smear of George Bush to describe him as lawless, when one points to his Yoo theories and his insistence on violating innumerable statutes, because the "smear" is true. It has been substantiated.
By contrast, many here attribute to me beliefs I do not hold and have never advocated, and have even explicitly rejected. There is literally no basis for much of the accusations leveled at me, and only from-the-hip assertions to support them.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit Jimmy Carter
Absolutely hilarious! It tops the wingnuttery of Bart, Shooter, Hypatia, EWO and even the moonbattery of Byron all rolled into one. Thanks for posting that. I haven't laughed so hard since the last time George Bush opened his mouth and unintelligible words came out.
DavidByron said...
ReplyDeleteHypatia,
It is so perverse that I am regularly accused of demonizing or smearing leftists here and elsewhere
I guess I'm the obvious lefty here and you've insulted me not at all that I recall. Plenty of so-called liberals have been chewing my ass though.
Awwww! Politics does make for strange bedfellows! I'll leave you two love trolls alone. Turn the lights on when you leave.
From the long note provided by davidbyron: Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. ... He had he said been too republican heretofore: he was still however republican, but had been taught by experience the danger of the levilling spirit.
ReplyDeleteHistorical note about "the levilling spirit." This is a reference to The Levellers. According to the online dictionary:
English Civil Wars
The Levellers were one of the largest factions on the Parliamentarian side during the English Civil Wars. They were organised at the national level, with offices in a number of London inns and taverns. The Levellers published a newspaper (The Moderate), and they identified themselves by sea-green ribbons worn on their clothing. The Levellers were extremely well-supported from within the ranks of the New Model Army.
Political ambitions
The Levellers' political ambitions involved a remodeling of the English political process along the lines of a more egalitarian, less class-driven regime. They held (in the words of Richard Overton) that "by natural birth all men are equally and alike borne to like propriety, liberty and freedom", and that government should be a contract between equal citizens. Their manifesto included: extension of suffrage to all adult males who were neither servants nor alms-takers, biannual or annual elections, complete religious freedom, an end to the censorship of books and newspapers, the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, trial by jury, an end to taxation of people earning less than £30 a year, and a maximum interest rate of six percent.
Secular foundation
The basis of Leveller politics was original in that it was not founded on religious doctrine. What the Levellers sought was a secular republic, without religious direction from the state. In common with later liberals they called for the abolition of tithes, the feudal fee charged to pay for the state church. They argued for complete religious tolerance, a position which was markedly radical for the time.
Their views were extended radically by groups such as the Diggers, led by Gerrard Winstanley, who called themselves True Levellers. They called for the total destruction of the existing order, and its replacement by a communistic and agrarian lifestyle based on a doctrine which they derived from the Book of Acts.
The defections have begun.
ReplyDeleteEx-Kansas GOP Chair Switches Affiliation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000878.html
Bart:Are you having a hard time distinguishing between the 80s which I was discussing and the 70s which you are raising as a red herring?
ReplyDeleteLet's see, Bart. Are you having a hard time distinguishing between the illict "wars" of choice in Central and South America and the overt wars of choice in the Middle East/Asia? ('70's v. '80's v. the present)
The US may have contributed to some changes in the balance of power in the regions to its south, but it was not in the positive light you frame it.
It could be argued that the end of the civil wars in Central America were postponed by US involvement, not precipitated because of its involvement.
While the re-election of Uribe in Colombiais celebrated as a turning of the tide of the left leaning election results of late in the region, one must remember that he forced a change in the Colombian Constitution to be re-elected.
Hmmm . . . you and David may have problems with any outcome of elections in Central and South America, much less in Palestine or Iran.
Mr. Rosenberg: I often criticize sectors of the left (with documentation). But so does leftist and co-editor Michael Walzer in Dissent, in a 2002 piece with which you may be familiar: Can There Be a Decent Left?
ReplyDeleteIt is these attitudes and postures of many on the left, that Walzer admits and elucidates, which many Americans pick up on and dislike. (And which Mr. Byron especially is an exemplar of.) Or is Walzer engaged in a "smear job?"
FYI David Byron: You weren't here first, not by a long shot. Before you get into bed with Hypatia, you had better check those lefty creditials. Otherwise you might find them missing . . . .
ReplyDeletedavidbyron: Cynic Librarian:
ReplyDeleteHistorical note about "the levilling spirit." This is a reference to The Levellers
david: Good catch. Yes there were many ideas floating around that were far more democratic than the path the American aristocrats took.
david, look at the dates. The Levellers were around during the English civil wars, ca. 1640s, 150 years before the US revolution. This fact might counter some of hypatia's argument, as well as others, that the Federalists were simply reacting to French Jacobinism.
davidbyron: One of the interesting features discussed above (in the quotes post) is the idea of filtering democracy.
ReplyDeleteYou said the notes were by Madison. Madison was a follower of Hume and used his ideas extensively in developing these "filters" to deflect the "currents" and subterranean volatility of the masses.
David, since you see this as a game, you lose. It was a she. Her name was Anne.
ReplyDeleteNot being a "gotcha" type like your buddy Hypatia (see the archives of this site, David), it's ok that you didn't know.
The relevance is that there were ore factors involved than you are willing to admit. By the way, neither your mythology explanation nor your patriotism explanations work with me. In my state we are taught exactly what the US that was joined was, our birth as a nation happened, and the unfortunate joining with the US happened. There are those of us who are reluctant members of the US.
You did not "prove anything" in any of your comments. You simply rehashed long old debates. I would rather that you not co-opt me into your wing of the political debate. I have my own side and am happy with it. (Work for it actually:)
David, as far as giving advice on regulating comments, from what I can tell, from your comments at other blogs and your profile, you have no experience in moderating comments. You make them (comments) until you are banned. Funny though, you won't have the same experience here.
My ability to make this comment is proof to that test. I have made far more controvercial comments than you have and Glenn still lets me in.
David, you are safe here. Why not address the original topic.
Jesus H. Christ.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe what a bunch of bullies are on this site (obvioulsy not all and certainly not Glenn.) What a hateful group of people this crew so often is with spite running through their veins instead of blood.
First of all David Byron:
Glenn takes another opportunity to insult me gratuitously.
What are you talking about? You wrote something and Glenn said it was blatantly frivolous which it obviously and irrefutably was, and you call that an insult?
If someone says a blue hat is blue, but you want it to be red, it's an "insult"?
Unusual position. You are the one who has "insulted" others on this very thread, not Glenn.
And don't worry. Glenn is not about to "ban" you. He has never "banned" anyone although no doubt others have urged him to do so, including myself.
We were wrong. He is right. I think many would just love Glenn to ban someone, so they can accuse him of being a member of the thought police coalition.
He's the opposite to his credit.
As hypatia has pointed out, she and I have very significant differences not the least of which is our opinion of Samuel Alito as a SC Justice.
But the way she is treated on this site would make me cry except that recently it has just made me laugh because it is so "twilight zone" in its preposterousness that in the end one can just laugh, although I expected better from the posters on this blog.
I see we have an education and I.Q. war underlying much of what goes on in this blog.
She is extremely intelligent, impressively (and that's an understatment in my own opinion) in total command of the facts about which she writes, and terrifically concise, lucid, and clear in her posts. I envy that ability of hers and only wish I had one-tenth of that ability myself.
Cynic, a poster I admire, owes hypatia an acknowledgment that she was factually right about the French Revolution in what she wrote, but I know cynic and know he believed what he wrote was correct when he wrote that. Cynic is one of the finest posters on this blog in my opinion.
Some seem to think hypatia cannot attack the doctrine of communism because Stalin isn't here to defend himself.
Yikes!
Paul Rosenberg, I often enjoy what you write and see that you are another person who is both intelligent and knowledgable.
But hypatia leaves you in the dust, in my opinion, in getting her points across clearly.
Some times I read your words, Paul, and they make perfect sense but other times, it's too much work to understand what point you are making.
Good writers communicate easily with their readers and Glenn is the perfect example of that.
I have never once been confused by anything hypatia has written either.
Apparently she is supposed to hang her head in shame because she correctly identifies the communist system of government as an evil one and identifies the specific atrocities that went on in Soviet Russia.
I think she should be very proud that she has mastered those facts so well and can so easily call facts forth when she is questioned about those issues.
Finally, I do not respond to posts by ender because he asked me not to but hypatia includes a quote of his in her own post.
Hypatia, can you tell ender if he ever asks, I did not vote for Bush 41, nor did I vote for Bush 43 either time.
I vote when there is someone to vote for. Otherwise I stay home.
Sue me.
PS. I have learned something about "lefties" from reading this blog all these months.
They are the most intolerant political group in America and if anyone else dares to differ with even one core position of theirs, they will attempt to assasinate that person and one way they do is to indulge in the politics of personal destruction.
Seems like that is as much their second nature as is true of the "righties."
EWO: I vote when there is someone to vote for. Otherwise I stay home.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is one very clear difference between us all, I think. It explains your frustration at the situation of this country now. It also harkens back to what David was saying either on this thread or another: democracy doesn't always work.
You and Hypatia always cite Objectivism, either overly or covertly. That is why Ender and I always call it. You both also champion -- I can't even say it -- the unbriddled exercise of capitalism -- there -- I did.
People hurt other people for profit. People want to escape responsibility for hurting others -- for profit.
Can we now, finally get back to the original post? Do any of you have an opinion about the US diplomatic relation with Lybia? Are any of you sure that Lybia doesn't have WMD? Before normalizing relations, did our government get any assurances?
Dorita, check your premises. I doubt hypatia is an "Objectivist" and she has never claimed to be one that I have seen.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call "capitalism" I actually despise, and I have always made it clear that I believe in a system of laissez-faire capitalism, not what we have in America.
Maybe you could explain to me how leaving people alone is "hurting" them for profit. I doubt it.
Glenn said in his book he didn't always vote either. I guess that's because he endorses people hurting other people for profit, as you suggest.
Attacking straw arguments seems to be a specialty of yours and many others here.
David, don't let EWO put you off of posting (not that I think it will).
ReplyDeleteS/He is all the proof you need that you can comment all you like.
My only note would be that, contrary to your earlier experiences, this is the one blog you will not get banned from. On the contrary, you can blather on and on and on :)
As Arne says
Cheers!
and as Bart says
:: chuckles
Merrily we spread democracy,
ReplyDeletespread democracy, spread democracy....
Troops shoot two Iraqi women at checkpoint
Meantime, prime minister declares state of emergency in Basra...
Updated: 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two Iraqi women were shot to death north of Baghdad after coalition forces fired on a vehicle that failed to stop at an observation post, the U.S. military said Wednesday. Iraqi police and relatives said one of the women was about to give birth.
EWO, I would refer you to the archives, just as Hypatia does every once in a while and then you can see. Your system of laissez-faire capitalism is exactly what I was referencing. You thin that business types can be trusted to do right by consumers. It's not true. They experiment on the populus. When your little girl is sucked down the drain of a "safe" pool, let me know. When your doctor removes your functining left kidney instead of your cancercous right, let me know, when your insurance company decides to terminate your insurance and not your neighbor's (even though the carrier is the some) you let me know.
ReplyDeleteYour "system of laissez-faire capitalism" lets them all shine.
I don't understand your outrage. Your side is in power. Is it that you are not part of the power structure? Is that why you are mad?
Maye you just aren't pretty?
EWO writes: I doubt hypatia is an "Objectivist" and she has never claimed to be one that I have seen.
ReplyDeleteI am in no manner an Objectivist, as I have said before. While I respect certain of Rand's intellectual contributions, and find some merit in some strands of Objectivism, I decidedly reject much and so emphatically am not an Objectivist. Indeed, because I don't wish to offend you, EWO, I have refrained from quoting from or linking to an evisceration of Rand by an author I hold in high esteem -- it would serve no constructive purpose.
But all of that is silly. We are not participating here to destroy Randians (you), libertarians(me), socialists (various), Democrats (many), or even Republicans (a few). Anyone who agrees that the Bush/Frist GOP has got to go, should be a welcome part of what this blog is about. Obviously disagreements will break out among such a disparate group, but keeping them fair and civil would be the way to go -- not to say the occasional "fuck you" isn't the mot juste when trollish zealots demand it.
One rule I've adopted with rare exception is not to reply to anons. That cuts down on the annoyance factor.
I don't understand your outrage. Your side is in power. Is it that you are not part of the power structure? Is that why you are mad?
ReplyDelete????????????????????????????????
MY side is in power?
OK. I see the problem. You are clearly insane but the reason you are insane is that you are as dumb as a dirt sandwich. Mystery solved.
Meanwhile, do drop a postcard when you have come up with a system of government which guarantees no doctor will ever remove the wrong kidney.
Hypatia, I know you will understand it when I say that to discredit Ayn Rand, the fair thing would be to use her own words in attempt to discredit her ideas.
Why would I care what others have said about her when I have studied her writings so extensively myself and am more than capable of independently evaluating her ideas. I don't need an interpreter as I might if the author was someone whose body of work I was not particularl familiar with.
I judge you by your words and not the "eviseration" that others on this blog attempt to do to your ideas.
What do people on this blog think of Joshua Frank? Here's a review of his book which I definitely will be buying. Maybe he attracts a more intelligent group of commenters.
Hephalumps and Woozels:
A Review of Joshua Frank's Left Out
by Adam Engel
First the good news: Joshua Frank is a first-rate journalist who's written a superbly researched, incisive book about who and what the Democrats really are. Now the bad news: Joshua Frank is a first-rate journalist who's written a superbly researched, incisive book about who and what the Democrats really are.
Depending upon your outlook, you may not care that there are still real journalists out there, like Frank, who are willing to search for and describe the truth. You may be one of those "fundamentalist" types who still believe what Mommy and Daddy and whatever relevant Authorities told you when you were one to ten years old – the years of impression, the mind-minting years, the years of language-acquisition and consequently, myth acquisition: that the Democrats are the "party of opposition," the defenders of "the little guy" and all that's worth fighting for. Mr. Smith goes to Washington, etc.
It's been five years since the appearance of Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's The Al Gore User's Manual, which gave us a detailed account of the real Al Gore, who was no more an "environmentalist" than Lee Iaccoca, no more a "typical American" than his rival, George W. Bush. One wonders whether, if more people had known the truth about what the Democratic party was and is, Ralph Nader would have received more votes than "Bronx Cheers," or if people would still have blamed the man whose life was spent working for the public good for lost votes for/against two men whose lives had hitherto been spent living off the fruits of public misery. Perhaps the User's Manual came out too soon; people were still high on the deeply inhaled myth of Clintonian prosperity, though by the 2000 election the bubble had burst; lives and markets had begun to crash.
Joshua Frank's Left Out deals with the myth that "America would be 'A.O.K' again under a Democratic president." Just as it had allegedly been flying high with Clinton and his co-pilot (Hillary? Gore? Blair?).
The first part of the book, filling half of its densely sourced and researched, yet blazingly readable 211 pages, deals with the phenomenon of the alleged "progressive outsider" Howard Dean, Vermont Governor, M.D., and putative challenger to the neo-liberal, Clinton-influenced, Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) lock on the Democratic party.
But Frank's analysis of Howard Dean is "about" Howard Dean in the way Robert Penn Warren's novel, All the Kings Men was "about" an earlier populist challenger to the Democratic liberal elites, Louisiana Governor Huey Long. Long's popularity and the cult of personality that surrounded him led many to wonder aloud (a cunningly oblique method of character assassination) if "fascism could come to America." Well, we know the answer to that – though a close reading of Bertram Gross's Friendly Fascism published in 1980, might be in order – and so does Frank.
Part One of Left Out is not about Dean as an individual phenomenon, which could be sloughed off, like Long was by the Depression-era Democrats, as a "fluke," but about the system that allows such individuals to rise to power, only to be put back in "their place" by the real rulers of the Democratic Party come election time. Frank's systemic analysis avoids the excuses we hear about "bad apples" (which allowed the ultimate insider/party hack, Richard Nixon, to be cut loose from the Party that nurtured him and that he served so well from the McCarthy era on, as an "aberration.")
True, George W. Bush and Company might be roaring along at 120 mph in a gas guzzling SUV while Gore and later Kerry pretended to obey the speed limit – though eagerly put the pedal to the metal when the arbitrary speed limit jumped from 55 to 65 in various states – in a slightly more ecological European or Japanese sedan, but both are burning environmentally hazardous fossil fuels in their journey down what Sioux Medicine Man/American Social critic, Lame Deer, called "that great American superhighway toward oblivion."
Frank makes clear in the beginning that the "Dean Phenomenon" had less to do with Dean himself than the arduous efforts of self-proclaimed "Deaniacs" who used the Internet to spread the message of "change." The Deaniacs were composed of diehard Democrats who couldn't bring themselves to vote for the same old mush offered by the party leadership but at the same time wouldn't admit "The Party" is over and let go (perhaps to create a new, grassroots organization that really would speak to "the people"), as well as Internet savvy college students and twenty-somethings looking for change and believing they found it in Dean. But, as Dean discovered during the Iowa primaries, the Internet is still an untested, unpredictable medium. Websites and mass emailing campaigns can create a buzz among activists and journalists, but the net is still not as omnipresent as television in voters' living rooms. A well-organized petition or signature campaign entailing legwork, phone-calls, canvassers and people talking to people the "old fashioned way" might have reached Iowa Democrats before the primary.
But by then it was too late, and seeing their chance, the DNC, DLC and other party elites pounced. They savaged Dean the way they had savaged Nader four years earlier, but unlike Nader, Dean was a Democrat, trying to work within the system, and he was certainly no progressive. What at first frightened, then, once they realized it could be contained, infuriated the DNC/DLC masters was the way in which Dean "earned" his contributions.
"Unlike his rivals in the campaign to unseat Bush, Dean claimed to actually be in tune with his community of faithful supporters, who by June of 2003 had raised over $10.5 million for his campaign. Bringing in over $15 million in small online donations – which typically averaged a meager $25 a pop – Dean broke the record for money raised by a single Democrat in one period by the presidential race's third quarter (Left Out, pg. 34).
"It was the making of a new wave of democratic participation – call it 'credit card activism' – where tech-savvy liberals latched onto Howard Dean's unorthodox campaign while he challenged the Iraq war and took on the Democratic Establishment (Democratic National Committee, DNC, and the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC) by raising bundles of cash outside the Democratic normal corporate circles.
"When the online activist organization MoveOn.org held their mock primary in late June 2003, the Dean campaign received an added boost, receiving funding from their own broad membership base. Echoing the beliefs of these liberals, Dean felt that the DC insiders were taking their party 'too far to the right.' And they were none too happy," wrote Frank (LO, pg. 34).
But was Dean really going against the grain, or was he merely using an image the Democratic elite themselves created for him as the "progressive outsider" to define himself as something he was definitely not?
"The story of how Howard Dean went from a supposed attacker, battering down the stodgy gates of the Democratic institution, to an insider hell-bent on weakening the party, further explicates that he and his party in fact helped reelect George W. Bush. What follows should serve as a dramatic warning of what the liberal end of the Democratic Party actually looks like, and why such a slight alternative to the Republican Agenda will not win important elections," wrote Frank (LO, pg. 35).
How did Dean and his party help Bush? By driving down the same "super-highway to oblivion," only slower, a bit more cautiously; hence, "like" Bush, but not Bush. What "follows?" A detailed, description of what Dean and his party are really about, and it's not pretty.
First, Frank puts the real Dean, not the media inflation/creation, under the journalists' microscope and finds...a Republican in "Democrat Drag."
As five-time governor of Vermont, Dean did to that state what Bush/Clinton/Bush did to the Nation as a whole (and Clinton and Bush Jr. did to Arkansas and Texas respectively).
He "balanced the budget" on the backs of the poor, the handicapped and the elderly, cutting social services while allowing corporate interests to develop on protected wilderness, pollute the environment and pay less than their fair share of taxes.
Dean criticized Bush for meeting privately with energy hucksters such as Ken Lay and closing the records of Cheney's "energy task force," yet he himself plotted Vermont's energy policy behind closed doors with the Vermont Energy Group.
His environmental policy was straight out of the pro-business-citizens-be-damned handbook. He turned a blind eye to corporate polluters and Big Agriculture's dangerous use of pesticides, despite frequent complaints by Vermont's citizens (LO, pp. 84–86).
"Dean's lackluster farm policies forced native Vermonter John Tremblay to move his family to New Hampshire. During his move Tremblay contended in the Vermonters for a Clean Environment report that Dean 'is a businessman with big money. He is not a farmer. He doesn't care about the people or the environment. He doesn't care that the air stinks or that there are flies everywhere. He doesn't care that his trucks ruin roads and make it unsafe for your children to ride their bikes. He doesn't care that he destroys your way of life, and unfortunately the state of Vermont doesn't care either.'" (LO, pg. 86)
Tremblay could have been talking about Texas under Beef and Oil friendly Bush or Arkansas under Tyson Chicken Clinton. Or about the United States of America under both.
Perhaps most hypocritical of all was Dean's position on the Death Penalty and Medical Marijuana. A former doctor who allegedly took the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm," Dean seemed as enamored of capital punishment as his alleged "rival" Bush, who excised over 130 human beings from the planet during his tenure as Governor of Texas.
[Note: this reviewer has never read the famous Hippocratic – hypocritic? – "oath;" perhaps it's merely the expletive spit out by recent med-school graduates when they receive their bill.]
"The problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then let out on what I think an believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through a second trial," Dean told Meet the Press in June of 2003.
Better one guilty man die than a thousand innocents go free on "technicalities" such as the Bill of Rights, Dean seemed to be saying.
Dean's position, on drug policy, as governor and presidential candidate, mirrors the draconian policies favored by both the Republican and Democratic parties and enforced by both Presidents Clinton and Bush II in which hospice-like organizations that administer marijuana to cancer, aids and glaucoma patients are raided by the DEA. There are thousands of drugs with harmful side effects and addictive properties manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies and sold legally by prescription. Because of the government's bizarre phobia of marijuana, the drug hasn't been studied fully for its various healing properties, yet it is known to ease the nausea and sickness caused by legal drugs used in chemotherapy and other legal procedures. Why would a doctor prevent terminally ill patients from obtaining relief from pain by any means necessary?
[Note: also, as far as this reviewer knows, examples of people getting "doped up" on pot and robbing a convenience store at gunpoint or beating up family members are relatively rare.]
Frank shows that the Dean Phenomenon wasn't all that phenomenal. Howard Dean was no more "progressive" than the "main stream" candidates of the DNC/DLC party elite. He was attacked viciously and vigorously by his "fellow Democrats," especially around the time of the Iowa Primaries, merely because he'd threatened the "business-as-usual" method of cadging corporate donations. By the time of the New Hampshire Primaries, he ran a distant third behind Party favorites Kerry and Edwards. But then, he faired better than the truly progressive Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, who were barely acknowledged at all.
As Part One of Left Out demonstrates, even a conservative challenger will incur the wrath of the Party Masters if he threatens their hegemony in any way. Hence, Dean, who hasn't a progressive bone in his body, was labeled a "liberal kook" and "too far to the left" to run a "real" candidacy, whereas the Party's Chosen ones, Kerry and Edwards, who followed the same political philosophy as Dean, but who got their money "the old fashioned way," won the approval of the Party and the Media, "We the people," as usual, were conveniently ignored. We'll vote Democrat anyway, won't we? Unless we're willing to "throw our votes away" on a third party, which in the DNC's view is equivalent to voting Republican, we have no choice. Hence, the true platform of the Democratic Party in 2004 was the same as it was in 2000: Anybody But Bush (ABB).
Though "liberal" filmmaker Michael Moore stumped briefly for "war hero" (in Clinton's murderous, illegal Bosnia campaign) General Wesley Clarke, the candidates of the DNC/DLC's choice were never in question, once Dean's brief flame flickered: Kerry and Edwards.
What did Kerry, the man who would unseat the tyrant George Bush, who was repeatedly compared to Hitler (and rightfully so, though people in glass houses...) throughout the campaign, represent? What changes would he bring to America? As it turned out, the only change Kerry offered was orthographic: instead of "President Bush" the newspapers would have to print "President Kerry."
The war in Iraq, an outrageous, racist, oil-inspired, cruel, murderous adventure supported from the get-go by both Republicans and Democrats by large majorities in the House and Senate, would not be stopped. Rather, Kerry would do a "better job" than Bush in ravaging Iraq.
The War on Terror? The War on Drugs? Campaign Finance reform? The Environment? An Israel-slanted mid-east policy? The unspoken but obvious "war" on minorities as exemplified by the "Prison Industrial System" (PIS) and capital punishment?
On nearly every issue, Kerry was more or less in agreement with Bush in that the "issue" whatever it was, had to be dealt with firmly, with grave war metaphors and tough talk. The only difference was the way in which these numerous "wars" would be fought – Kerry's strategy for winning wars against diseases, ideologies, methodologies, nouns, adjectives, adverbial clauses, was somehow better, less costly and smarter than Bush's.
Of course, this is nothing new. "McCarthyism" played itself out during a Democrat's tenure, as did the first years of heavy fighting/bombing of the Viet Nam war. But even Lyndon Johnson had the liberal fig leaf of the "Great Society" to balance his war mongering. The real leap of bad-faith for the Democrats, the poisoning of the well which will never yield potable water again but must be abandoned for a fresher source, began with the first term of Bill Clinton.
Clinton's "welfare reform" forced single mothers to work minimum wage jobs without the option of child-care or other crucial services. Clinton's NAFTA agreement sent millions of American jobs across the border and overseas. Clinton began the first major assault against the Bill of Rights, which would culminate in the USA PATRIOT ACT under Bush, when he signed the "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" in 1996. In addition to bombing Iraq several times, bombing the Sudan, and launching the planet's first "Humanitarian War" in Bosnia, the Clinton Administration was responsible for well over half a million Iraqi deaths, according to former Secretary of State Madeline "It Was Worth It" Albright, due to lack of medicine and other necessities blocked by sanctions. More money was spent on PIS and more Americans went to prison (especially Americans of Color) under Clinton than under Reagan or Bush I.
The list of Clinton's offenses against the people and environment of the U.S. and the world is long and painful to read, but Frank explores this list of swindles and privations worthy of the most right-wing of Republicans, worthy of and indeed expanded upon by George W. Bush. The Democratic Party is not the party of "the people," it's just not the party in control, or at least, not the party with a president in office. It lost the past two presidential elections, and many House and Senate seats, by following the pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-environment, destructive lead of the Republicans while trying to maintain the charade that it's the "party of the people."
Kerry offered nothing that hadn't already been supplied – in abundance – by Bush.
"It can be safely said that the economic pendulum would not have swung in the opposite direction had Kerry won the election. The number of people living in poverty would surely have increased. Jobs would still continue to be exported. Livelihoods would have continued to go down the drain. And health care for all would certainly not have been attainable, much less wished for by the Democrats," wrote Frank (LO, pp. 162–163).
U.S. foreign policy, from favoring Israel over the Palestinians to continuing the colonization of Iraq to entering new conflicts under the guise of "The War on Terror" would have remained Bush's in substance, had Kerry won, differentiated only in whatever ways Kerry's "style" of management differed from Bush's.
The assault of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, expanded by Bush but begun during the Reagan era and managed by Bush I and Clinton (particularly the Clinton of Waco; the beating of WTO protesters in Seattle; the V-chip and other obtrusive technologies, and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act) would doubtless have continued.
"Racist profiling, harassment of black and Latino youth under the guise of "anti-gang" activity, and no-knock SWAT raids on the homes of non-whites increased dramatically under Bill Clinton" as did the number of Americans in jail and Police on the streets, wrote Frank (pp. 169–170).
Bush expanded and accelerated these policies – crusin' down that superhighway – and Kerry promised to at least maintain them – same highway, different vehicle, perhaps slower in deference to state speed limits and "rule of law."
"...by ascribing all the civil liberties tribulations of this country to one date, September 11, 2001, and one administration, George W. Bush's, the liberal establishment has avoided any painstaking analysis of our systemic civil liberties problems that would indeed point back in its own members' direction. Like so many other issues, the Democrats had been doing Bush's work for him all along," wrote Frank (pg. 173).
That there are few if any substantial differences between Democrats and Republicans, that settling for the "lesser evil" is like settling for the "less broken" of broken bottles, is the ultimate thesis of Left Out. With both parties offering variations of the themes of war, corporatism, intrusive state control and environmental meltdown as "real world choices," we must imagine a better world and make it so, or resign ourselves to the Oblivion at the end of the great superhighway.
The "choices" in 2004 boiled down to Kerry's war or Bush's; Kerry's environmental sell-out or Bush's; Kerry's bond market economy or Bush's; Kerry's Patriot Act or Bush's. How dare they have mocked Greens and Naderites for not being "realistic?" What does "realistic" mean, supporting the murder of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis under false pretenses and paranoid lies?
Highway America: last stop Oblivion, or Renewal?
As Frank demonstrates through a relentless barrage of source material, sober analysis, and the kind of clear, concise prose that can only be achieved through integrity and honesty, the last time the Democrats were the party of the people, if it ever was, the Andrews Sisters were at the top of the pops and there were two Major League Baseballs: one for white people and one for "colored." It was considered unrealistic, loony, Utopian, and downright un-American that the best players of these separate, unequal (in terms of wealth, not talent) leagues would ever compete on the same field of play.
To quote the late baseball commentator, Mel Allen, who covered the game both before and after the "Utopian fantasy" of integration: "How about that!"
June 27, 2005
The model for the limited government formulated by Madison et al. is, of course, set out by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) in his essay, "The Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth." Madison was an attentive follower of Hume's ideas. Hume writes:
ReplyDeleteThe lower sort of people and small proprietors are good judges enough of one not very distant from them in rank or habitation; and therefore, in their parochial meetings, will probably chuse the best, or nearly the best representative: But they are wholly unfit for county-meetings, and for electing into the higher offices of the republic. Their ignorance gives the grandees an opportunity of deceiving them.
...
All free governments must consist of two councils, a lesser and greater; or, in other words, of a senate and people. The people, as Harrington observes, would want wisdom, without the senate: The senate, without the people, would want honesty.
A large assembly of 1000, for instance, to represent the people, if allowed to debate, would fall into disorder. If not allowed to debate, the senate has a negative upon them, and the worst kind of negative, that before resolution.
Here therefore is an inconvenience, which no government has yet fully remedied, but which is the easiest to be remedied in the world. If the people debate, all is confusion: If they do not debate, they can only resolve; and then the senate carves for them. Divide the people into many separate bodies; and then they may debate with safety, and every inconvenience seems to be prevented.
ewo: Troops shoot two Iraqi women at checkpoint
ReplyDeleteMeantime, prime minister declares state of emergency in Basra...
Who will, however, investigate the atrocities at Basra and Falluja, as well as those others documented by Dahr Jamail:
Arun Gupta, an investigative journalist and editor with the New York Indypendent newspaper of the New York Independent Media Center, has written extensively about US-backed militias and death squads in Iraq. He is also the former editor at the Guardian weekly in New York and writes frequently for Z Magazine and Left Turn.
"The fact is, while I think the militias have, to a degree, spiraled out of US control, it's the US who trains, arms, funds, and supplies all the police and military forces, and gives them critical logistical support," he told me this week. "For instance, there were reports at the beginning of the year that a US army unit caught a "death squad" operating inside the Iraqi Highway Patrol. There were the usual claims that the US has nothing to do with them. It's all a big lie. The American reporters are lazy. If they did just a little digging, there is loads of material out there showing how the US set up the highway patrol, established a special training academy just for them, equipped them, armed them, built all their bases, etc. It's all in government documents, so it's irrefutable. But then they tell the media we have nothing to do with them and they don't even fact check it. In any case, I think the story is significant only insofar as it shows how the US tries to cover up its involvement."
Is it me or is this place getting more slimey and flame-filled?
ReplyDeleteIt's you.
If Glenn doesn't care about it I certainly do.
I truly don't believe I've ever heard a more pompous a-hole.
Run, don't walk, to a very old thread, puh-leeze!
From Jason Miller @ Tom Paine's Corner (via Selves and Others):
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ayn Rand, for affirming the naked brutality and avarice of America’s socioeconomic system, a system which enables a privileged few who “play the game” well to mercilessly pursue their personal interests, amass private fortunes, and hoard the lion’s share of “America’s abundance”.
HWSNBN moves the goal posts:
ReplyDeleteAre you having a hard time distinguishing between the 80s which I was discussing and the 70s which you are raising as a red herring?
Care to explain why the '70s (or even '60s, '50s, etc. aren't part of U.S. foreign policy and subject to discussion here??? Since when have you been elected emperor and get to decide what is allowed in conversation? Or are you just "cherry picking" a decade that looks least grim for your favourite truthiness?
FWIW, the leftists, despite your claims, have been putting up quite substantial showings in CA elections, and have won on some levels and even came close to winning nationwide in Honduras (IIRC) recently ... until the U.S. decided to step and strong-arm them and said they'd better watch their step down there if they wanted any U.S. aid. Which, to be honest, is a better showing by the left than they were allowed under the dictators of the banana republics the U.S. had long coddled or even installed.
Then there's Venezuela ... and now Bolivia, and perhaps a slew of other countries to boot ... that are saying, "you know, we don't need this shite the U.S. is handing out, we'll voet for who we want." Democracy is a terrible thing.... Better watch out, Bart, or it will bite you ... deep ... in the ass. And a good thing for you that we don't harken back to the days of the French revolution (under discussion above), or your head would be one of the first in the bucket.
Cheers,
Good Luck on your tour. I finished reading your book yesterday, and it was a very compelling read.
ReplyDeleteYou have become one of my heroes, Glenn.
IN addition to our newest buddy and full time goon, Gadafi, let's not forget another of our "good buddies", Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov.
ReplyDeleteRead how this fun guy likes to pass the day, with US support in the form of guns and money:
"There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death. "
Now is Karimov a riot or what? Hey, maybe we can franchise a Gitmo or Abu Ghraib in that paradise.
They seem to know their business.
This country long ago lost its moral compass and decided to chose lifestyle over humanity.
We'll coddle any tyrant, as long as he's got scads of oil and gas, which Uzbekistan has in abundance.
Our underlying mindset seems to be, "Hey, i don't care how many Muslims we've got to kill, as long as gasoline stays below $2.50 a gallon. Good grief man, don't you realize how much it costs to fill up my Humvee these days?".
America has become a sick and diseased nation. And we are desperate to infect other nations with our sickness. On our terms and by the way, we stay #1 and you get to lick our boots or other unsavory body parts.
And if you don't want any part of our "Shock and Awe" Democracy tour coming soon to a caliphate near you, we'll just send in the Marines and keep killing your citizens until you come to your senses.
This would probably read better in German, but i'm too busy reading "Mein Kampf" and teaching myself to goosestep to bother with such niceties.
Greg Bacon
Ava, MO
But all of that is silly. We are not participating here to destroy Randians (you), libertarians(me), socialists (various), Democrats (many), or even Republicans (a few). Anyone who agrees that the Bush/Frist GOP has got to go, should be a welcome part of what this blog is about.
ReplyDeleteYou have to treat the underlying disease. You cannot cure the patient by just treating the symptoms, and we all can agree that the patient is very, very ill.
Some of us here know this illness better than others because we don't drink the kool-aid. Some actually think the next drink of kool-aid will make you better.
Mr. Rosenberg writes: This is not what I have seen. I have seen you smear the entire Vietnam Anti-War movement, of which I was a part. I saw you paint it as violent, hateful and anti-American.
ReplyDeleteNo I have not. I virtually always employ qualifiers such as "many," or a "large sector," and describe the slogans and violent riots that Americans saw on their TVs and read about in their appears every day, including the frequent calls to "kill pigs." There is a reason Days of Rage has passed into the national lexicon (and note from that link that today's anti-war movement omits this pervasive violence). But never have I said it was the entire movement because, among other things, many Catholics of my acquaintance were anti-war and did none of these other things.
Again, this is not what I have seen. I saw you smear Democrats by asserting that they deserved to be seen as weak on national security, due--ultimately--to the alleged actions and beliefs of people in the Anti-War Movement. This is guilt-by-association at second remove.
Again, you misstate me. I have *described* that this is what happened, and said this was so whether it was fair or not. When he was still a Democrat in 1974 Norman Podhoretz wrote he feared the radicals would move the country, including the Democrats, to the left, and he has been proven prescient. Nor has he been the only person to make this observation, either approvingly or disapprovingly. Americans do not like extremists, and whether it was fair or not, George McGovern got tagged with the extremists in the anti-war movmt and the party has suffered since on national security, as reflected in many polls until quite recently. That is a simple sociological observation, and not a "smear."
From Bart at 10:45PM:
ReplyDelete"Please. The Sandanistas and El Salvadoran guerillas were supplied with weapons by the USSR through Cuba."
Given the US was busy arming the people they were fighting against, small wonder they went that route. Does that automatically make them Marxist or communist? Not necessarily, plus lets not forget those same groups were initially receipents of US aid.
And if you're going to fixate on just two cases, please make it clear you aren't trying to paint the entire region red. Otherwise you're going to run into all sorts of problems with little things like facts.
From Bart at 11:02PM:
ReplyDelete"I am not discussing "terrorism." As you correctly observed, terrorism is merely a tactic. The "War against Terror" is a marketing slogan, not an accurate description of our war against Islamis Fascism, which is another in a line of totalitarianisms we have fought over the past century."
Marvelous conflation there, Bart. One minute you want to claim this 'war' has prevented further terrorist attacks on our shores, then you switch gears and claim you weren't discussing terrorism at all.
(re: this 'war' prevented further attacks)
"I never said anything like that."
Really? Guess I was reading your words a little too literally then. Pray, provide a clearer translation for those of us speaking English.
"As to the Clinton Administration, I merely noted that doing nothing to get the Euros to like us did not stop our enemies."
You realize that sentence makes no sense, right?
"As to the Bush Administration post 9/11, I stated that we have limited al Qaeda's international reach against us by bringing the war to their countries. In fact, al Qaeda is attacking us more frequently in the ME as we engage and kill them off."
And in the process create still more recruits for Al Qaeda and its satellites, none of which wear uniforms or have any manner of central registeries (that we know of, anyway), while at the same time convince any potential allies it is the US that is the greater danger.
I'd also point out that if we really were going to "bring the war to their countries" as you claim, we'd be invading Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, and Yemen, which are the central points of Whabbism's financial and political support.
But then, that would mean the current Administration is serious about the threat we face, wouldn't it?
Oh, the irony of it...
ReplyDeleteDavidByron says:
Is it me or is this place getting more slimey and flame-filled
You're like a guy who comes into a bar and starts pontificating loudly, for all to hear.
Some of your rantings sound interesting; some patrons pay attention, others turn away.
The owner drops by, challenges a couple of your assertions and walks away. You take offense and start yelling you've been insulted. In the process you spill your beer and knock over a few nearby tables.
The bystanders nearby are amused but they gently offer you a bit of advice and suggest you calm down.
This enrages you as it strikes you right in the part of the body known as the martyr's complex. Now you start shouting how everyone has turned against you, but you'll show them.
A nearby patron reports how you've previously been thrown out of the bar down the street. This unleashes the next level of fury (and paranoia) and you start spouting obscenities.
Then you vomit on the floor and say, "This place is disgusting, doesn't the owner take care of this place?"
I offer this so that you might see yourself as others see you so that you might choose to clean up your act.
However, I doubt that you will choose to do so. I think you know exactly what you are doing. I think it is precisely your intention to make a ruckus. Maybe getting thrown out of the bar fuels your martyr complex. And if not, it sure feels good to spew bile and venom all over the place, doesn't it?
The founding fathers may not have been perfect, but I'd sure rather live in the place where they created the rules than in a place where you created them.
Just my opinion, of course.
Oh yes, and I challenge you to show us all where Paul Rosenberg tried to have you banned.
Well Paul, if I live in a bubble, so does former 60s radical Todd Gitlin, whose book is titled Years of Hope, Days of Rage. the phrase entered the political lexicon, which is how he know the title would resonate. Or progressive poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti: He also published two novels....and Love in the Days of Rage (1988).
ReplyDeleteFurther examples are legion; the phrase has entered the political lexicon because of the nature of the anti-war mvmt in the 60s, which was frequently -- not invariably -- violent.
I, for one, am glad that Hypatia has rendered herself irrelevant, or we might have to had suffer through her guest blogging while Glenn was busy. Bart and Byron were never in the running, but many of the other commenters here would be wonderful guest bloggers, and are too numerous to mention without seeming to pick a favorite and I'm too lazy to alphabetize. Jeebus, Byron... take a lesson in this before you render your most of your ideas and opinions irrelevant as well. Unless that is you actual motive. One c an never tell with you.
ReplyDeleteThis is David Horowitz on anti-psychotic medication...
ReplyDelete"My generation of the New Left—a generation that grew as the [Vietnam] war went on—relinquished any title to patriotism without much sense of loss. All that was left to the Left was to unearth righteous traditions and cultivate them in universities. The much-mocked political correctness of the next academic generations was a consolation prize. We lost—we squandered the politics—but won the textbooks."
Todd Gitlin... from Varieties of Patriotic Experience
Paul, just as you can see bloggers all over refering to the "swift-boating" of Murtha or the dissenting Generals, you can find headlines invkoing "Days of Rage"in political contexts, to cite a mere very few such: this, or this at The Nation about Iran or this one using it to contrast with the non-violent rage of today's war protestors wrt Iraq or PBS using the meme to capture a violent story re; the Middle East. (Shoot, forgot link; will retrieve if you doubt me.)
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is The Note writing this (my emphasis):
Under a "Days of Rage" header, the Wall Street Journal's ed board writes that Ned Lamont's Connecticut performance and the reception that Sen. McCain received at the New School "speak volumes about the direction of modern liberal politics, and it's not an encouraging trend, especially if you're a Democrat who wants to take back the White House."
Sorry, but if not used as often as "swift-boating," "Days of Rage" has entered our political lexicon as a result of the violence that too often manifested in the Viet Nam war protests. It is a trope recognized by all politically aware people, especially of a certain age. Ain't no bubble of mine.
Tom Hayden:
ReplyDeleteFor the first time in memory, the patriotism of the corporate globalizers is in question, not that of their opponents. Do the Clinton administration's investor-based trade priorities benefit America's interest in high-wage jobs, environmental protection and human rights? Are American democratic values and middle-class interests secondary to those of transnational corporations? As a grass-roots movement seeking the overthrow of what it sees as an oppressive system, Seattle '99 was more like the Boston Tea Party than the days of rage we knew in the late '60s.
See: one term in the political lexicon, Boston Tea party, more apropos than another.
Days of Rage:An American Photographer’s Journal
from some not terribly political group blog (my emhasis)
In this summer of 1968, my hometown is in upheaval. Mayor Daley’s famous political machine is gearing up for the Democratic Convention, and while the Viet Nam war continues in Asia, another is being waged at home. In the name of social revolution, political activists have declared war on our democratic system. Butting heads with the Cold War liberals who orchestrated Viet Nam are anti-war leaders like Dave Dellinger, Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden. ...
The blood I see this morning is the product of a demonstration by members of CADRE (the Chicago Area Draft Resisters) at the Civic Center Plaza. In the shadow of City Hall, they burned draft cards, cardboard political figures and might have gone further if the police hadn’t intervened. The evening news coverage showed a screaming mob and the cops who struggled to control them.
This morning’s bloody battleground is another of many that have marked our city .... The silence will be harder...the one that descends as I recall blood on the streets and violence all around us in those times of chaos and days of rage.
Why, it is in her lexicon, too!
And Yale Alumni Magazine:
The year 1968 has assumed almost iconic proportions in the American historical imagination. The date may not be in a league with 1929 (the Crash), or 1945 (VE- and VJ-Day), but it's close. It was a year of widespread and violent student protests in Europe, of civil rights demonstrations all across this country, and what would lead to the "days of rage" and the dawning of the "Age of Aquarius."
Paul "Days of Rage" is in the political lexicon -- it just is. That's why Gitlin and others have included the phrase in book and magazine titles about the whole Viet Nam era. And is also why my use of the term is neither a smear not unfair; it is a recognized meme to the politically and historically literate.That you dislike its taint of the anti-war mvmt does not change this reality.
You may have the last word; I have joined a soon to launch group blog and must turn to drafting pieces for that, instead of spending so much time here. But I will be writing about some issues salient to Glenn's concerns, albeit in a more libertarian milieu. This blog is not libertarian-friendly, and our opposition to Bushism, and a willingness to consider going Donkey or at least for gridlock, is too important a matter to be left for nurturance in the hostile environment here.
The good news is that no one else is reading this thread anymore.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope I'm not intruding but I've been following this conversation because it's been quite interesting.
Paul, I think your "identity narrative" concept has something to it, but there is something else going on (IMO) wrt to DavidByron and the treatment he has received.
I've followed his trashing America posts for awhile, but not knowing enough American history, have not been able to respond. But then Glenn challenges him with a very reasonable (sure, a little aggressive) post and the guy goes positively infantile.
A few others offer some gentle suggestions and he turns hostile to everyone. I think that's why he received the treatment he did. He writes some pretty aggressive stuff and the first time I see him challenged he goes ballistic.
Hypatia, it is not my intention at all to pile-on. But Paul's identity narrative theory does put something in place for me wrt to your posts. I like your posts a lot, you are an excellent writer and you can always back up what you say with references.
But when you write about the Left, the Communist Party (in America), Stalin, etc. it seems like its coming from another person. On that subject you are so absolutist that no possibility other than the most extreme position you advance can be allowed.
The example that has always bothered me is when we discussing McCarthyism, Robert Oppenheimer, etc. You insisted that anyone who had every joined the CPUSA had to be an agent of Stalin because all who joined were tightly controlled. When given counter examples, they were all rebutted as impossible becuase all members were tightly controlled. No other possibility exists.
I remember my father telling me that many people joined the CPUSA because it was the fashionable thing to do. But in most cases it didn't amount to anything. If your 1st principle is correct, no exceptions, then they were all agents of Stalin. If my father were alive today, I'm pretty sure he'd find that ridiculous wrt certain people he knew. So maybe, just maybe your 1st principle isn't as absolute as you insist it is. Furthermore, it doesn't pass the common sense test. No organization is just that perfectly in control of everyone of it's members.
Your belief in this #1 principle seems absolute. But if it's not true, if some exceptions exist, then you may have tarred some people incorrectly through guilt by association.
Sheesh! I didn't know the far left had so little tolerance for the middle left.
ReplyDelete