Why Do Conservatives Hate Gays?

I know some of our conservative friends would object to the charge that they actually "hate" gay people, but I think the overwhelming evidence from the anti-gay protests--whether in the form of wingnut blog postings, cable television shout fests, or "pro-family" interest group press releases--says about all we need to know.

So, why do conservatives hate gays? I'll give it a shot by suggesting several alternatives, then try to explain the basis for each.

a) The Bible condemns homosexuality, conservatives believe and follow every apparent command in the Bible, so by deduction, gays and homosexual behavior are to be hated and opposed so that God may glorify the nation;

b) Gayness undermines and threatens family unions and society's procreative future and consequently, leads to the downfall of the nation and civilization;

c) Gays are "different", and gay behavior is just "offensive", a deviance, a perversion that tempts our children to unproductiveness and places our culture at risk.


a) probably deserves more elaboration than I will choose to give it here, but I think it is fair to say in brief that few people if any believe or follow every example laid down in scripture. The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn polygamy, for example, and even appears to command it in some circumstances, such as when a brother has died without producing male offspring and the surviving widow is to be taken by a surviving brother of the deceased man (seemingly regardless of whether he is already married) to wife in order to provide the deceased man a family line (Deuteronomy 25). Yet polygamous relationships are something society seems to have decided are undesirable. Slavery gets a pass in the Bible, too (Exodus 21). Yet modern society, for all its decrepitness, has come to the conclusion that slavery is distasteful and immoral, even if the basis for that conclusion was helped in part by slavery's declining lack of usefulness economically. Furthermore, the Bible appears to condemn the eating of shellfish, pig meat, and prescribes a host of other health related guidelines that I suspect most people affiliated with Focus on the Family have conveniently discarded. In the Bible, people were stoned for breaking the Sabbath, killed for fornicating with neighboring tribes, for erecting "idolitrous" images, and so on. Finally, the number of references in the Bible to homosexuality are few, and in some of those, the actual behavior being condemned could be, and is disputed.

But perhaps even more relevant is that while some opponents of gayness reference the Bible in the course of their objections, it doesn't sound as if it is for God's glory they are reacting as they are. Rather, their concern seems to lie elsewhere. Such as in--

b) Gayness as threat to families and civilization has emerged as perhaps the most commonly cited concern by opponents. There are a number of unstated assumptions and premises underlying this origin of gay-hate. One is that although believed by conservatives to comprise less than 10% of a society's population, gayness, like a disease, is capable of spreading, influencing individuals who would otherwise hook up with other-sex partners to "choose" same sex partners instead. The result of such choices is that the desire to hook up with other sex partners declines, the desire to marry and produce families declines, and there is a groundswell towards homosexuality soon rendering a society extinct as it fails to produce offspring. National decline is a big crisis word conservatives serve up in the context of the gay debate. As acceptance of gayness grows, community heterosexuality grows weaker, heterosexual marriage becomes "under seige" by newly loud and vocal opponents of marriage, and, well, you get the idea.

All of this sounds rather implausible to me. Sometime last spring or summer when the gay debate was heating up I emailed Glenn Beck, one of the many right wing radio hosts out there with his own book and asked him how if homosexuality was much rarer than the numbers he claimed are cited by gay activists, then what exactly was the threat from homosexuality? He didn't respond to my email. Imagine that. Maybe there's more to this point, but I don't see it, and highly doubt whether conservatives themselves take it very seriously either, which leads me to--

c) Gayness is just deviant, corruptive behavior that offends some people. This sounds a lot like b) above but without the necessity for demonstrating the catastrophic consequences from homosexuality. It argues, instead, that gayness is just bad, not normal. It's reasoning is circular. Gayness is a threat to families and marriage because gayness is a threat to families and marriage. How exactly? If gayness is rather limited in the population, how does it threaten the inclination for heterosexual marriages and reproduction? Does it make marriage seem somehow "dirty" or not special to heterosexuals? If this is the case, that gayness is such a threat to families, than families must be pretty fragile entitities. This is the underlying cry from opponents of gays and gay rights. Families are "at risk", "under attack", etc. Families must be pretty weak, which makes me wonder if they are, why should we be propping them up? If families are so vulnerable, then maybe there are bigger problems out there than gays.

Let The Word Go Forth

The General has christened soon-to-be Secretary of State, Donna Rice, as "Ofgeorge", based, no doubt, on that french-screed of a book, The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood.

But if Donna Rice is Ofgeorge, then what do we call Secretary of Education, Tori Spelling, W's Texas-grown homegirl he promoted from White House policy advisor? And she's been busy lately...

Something Other Than What It Seems?

There was a big celebration for pro-lifers on the Washington Mall the other day. The Republican president, as usual, phoned in his remarks. My fellow Adventist, I'm sorry to admit, Maryland Congressman Roscoe Barlett, was on hand, though, to cheer on the troops of compassionate conservatism, if that is what they are.

Now, Bulworth admits abortion makes him uncomfortable. Especially those carried out after the fetus is viable outside the womb. But at the same time, I can't say I get worked up about the issue. It's hard for me to imagine that abortions performed early, and inventions such as the so-called "morning after" abortion pill, RU-486, cause harm to a conscious or unborn being.

Which makes me wonder just exactly what is it about abortion that gets the ardent anti-abortioners upset. They seem like a pretty rough, angry group, unsympathetic to other human rights issues and the care of persons once they're born. Take for example, some of the loudest, most prominent voices waged against abortion such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and the folks at townhall.com. So it seems hard to believe they are really concerned about the "sanctity of life" as they and their president like to say.

There are some who would say that the whole anti-abortion movement is really about limiting sex, and ultimately wants to do away with contraceptives as well, something which, if right-to-lifers really thought about it, would likely have the effect of increasing unplanned pregnancies and increasing abortions. This is by and large the official Catholic church position, so there must be some truth to this allegation.

Then there is the curious phenomenon that indicates that real life abortions actually declined under the liberal Democratic President, Bill Clinton, but have increased under the stewardship of George W. Do "right-to-lifers" care about these trends? Is there any interest on the "right"
about what causes abortion and perhaps taking strides to limit those conditions, or is it just the prominence of legislation, the stamp of official disapproval from their nation's federal government that they want?

Still, what else is there? Do they feel the "pain" of the fetus? Do they think there is some injustice being done during an abortion? Or are they upset about something else? Me thinks most anti-abortion members aren't really concerned about families or children or the "unborn". Their tone and alternative policy preferences strike me as a jarring disconnect.

Then, too, I wonder to what degree most "right to lifers" are really ready to impose serious criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions and women who receive or attempt to receive them? Undoubtedly some believe they are. But it seems like a difficult hurdle for anti-abortionists to get over. Maybe I'm being too generous or naive about the ends to which some "defenders of life" are willing to go.

Like the Rogue Progressive, I tend to believe that most if not all of the issues under the culture war banner are about restricting the rights of women. But I think the general conservative fetish is that of hierarchy. That's why conservatives express such reverance for institutions like the military, the church, and corporations, and such disdain for more egalitarian and diverse places like colleges and universities. When conservatives say things like "the family is under attack" I suspect they are primarily complaining about what they perceive to be challenges to the man's hierarchical place in it.

Now, back to what I started with...abortion gives women an option about a pregnancy after the fact, so to speak, and this prerogative doesn't sit well with conservative admirers of male domination, even among those women who like male-dominated family hierarchy.

Next: Why do conservatives hate gays?

What Liberal Media?

As I've mentioned before, Bulworth is a Christian and attends church each week, but he has, shall we say, a few differences with the Religious Right. Anyway, Bulworth has noticed how many religious programs there are on TV these days and the origin as well as the content of these shows deserves some attention.

On regular TV you can tune in on Sundays to hear D. James Kennedy, from Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Kennedy hosts a radio program and related website called Truths that Transform, heads an outfit called the Center for Reclaiming America, and in February is hosting a Reclaiming America for Christ conference, which will include among others, David Limbaugh. Now, I'm not sure that Christ wants to claim or reclaim America or if he needs D. James Kennedy's help if He decided to do so. But as you might imagine, Kennedy's programs are light on Bible teaching and heavy on political spiel, with an emphasis on the new trifecta of right-wing politics: gays, abortion, and "America's Christian Heritage". Kennedy openly and brazenly lambastes the separation of church and state.

On cable TV, you can get Kennedy as well as Rod Parsley, the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. Parsley has his own political foundation as well, lobbying and advocating on the same set of issues as Kennedy, chastizing gays, abortion, liberals, feminists, atheists, Democrats, the ACLU, and other perceived opponents and undesirables. Where Kennedy projects a calm, if arrogant image, Parsley is a screamer and a sweater. A charismatic, pentecostal preacher, Parsley has a checkered background in ministry. Nonetheless, his church plays host to some 5000 members a week.

Finally, my Comcast stable of offerings also includes the Catholic Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). Although Catholicism is anything if not diverse, EWTN toes the conservative line, emphasizing its opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state in its "news" coverage and special programming. Several specific programs are dedicated to the abortion issue alone. While EWTN includes a good deal of Catholic specific teaching and doctrine, its overwhelming and narrow political focus puts in solidly in the camp of the previous shows and hosts and in most segments, is virtually indistinguishable from programming on the protestant, Pat Robertson headed 700 Club.

It would be nice if networks provided equal time programming to these overtly political shows. If we really had a liberal media, maybe they would.

Thems Were The Days...

Remember this?

Once upon a time, many years ago (1999), in a land very far away (The U.S.), the Republican Party railed against the use of annual Social Security trust fund surplus monies to "inflate the federal budget numbers". They even called such budgetary gimmickry "morally wrong".

And today?

Total Deficit(-) or Surplus in billions of dollars

Year 2004

Total Revenues 1,782

Total Outlays 2,158

Total Deficit (-) or Surplus -375

on-budget -536

off-budget (with Soc Sec) -161


So for those of you kids keeping score at home, we're using $161 billion of the 2004 Social Security trust fund surplus funds (that is, all of the currrent incoming payroll taxes not needed to fund current Social Security benefits) for tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

Oh where, oh where, have the morally right, conservative Republican budgeteers gone?

Thomas's Foot Still in His Mouth

Here is Ways and Means Chairman, William Thomas (R-CA), trying to amend last week's statement about Bush's Social Security plan being a "dead horse":

I didn't say it was dead on arrival," he said. "What I said was, I hope we didn't have our friends on the other side of the aisle attacking the president's proposal once it's introduced. Because, once it's introduced, it becomes part of the legislative process. Suggest changes or suggest substitutions, but don't continue the arguments against the president's plan, because it's now part of the legislative process. That would be beating a dead horse."

What? Once the President's plan has been introduced you can only suggest changes, you can't "attack it" or oppose the whole thing? Students of Congress must be racking their brains trying to figure this enunciation of legislative procedure out.

Debunking "Limited Government" II

Earlier I stated that the stated conservative goal of Limited Government was both a manipulative way of preventing the terms of economic policy from being contested and thereby maintaining the existing state of power relations favorable to the haves of society at the same time it was hypocritical and disingenuous because conservatives routinely and vigorously throw the assumption of Limited Government under the metaphorical bus when their aim is to enact punitive, invasive policies to restrict the sexual practices of individuals, compel religious adherence, and regulate activity otherwise normally reserved to the private sphere.

To that I will add a critical third point. Even where it concerns the intervention in and regulation of economic behavior or the establishment of economic institutions, the notion of Limited Government is really about as useful and principled a paradigm for conservatives and the rest of us as a wad of phlegm. That is, when conservatives claim to support Limited Government the truth is they do not really mean it.

If conservatives really believed in Limited Government there would not be any funding for scientific and medical research and development, the benefits of which flow to many of our supposed bastions of Free Enterprise, like the pharmaceutical industry (PHARMA). If conservatives really believed in and truly wanted Limited Government there would not be any mortgage interest tax deductions or any employer deductions for providing health insurance to their employees. If conservatives really admired Limited Government there would not be any subsidies to large agribusiness farm conglomerates. If conservatives really favored Limited Government there would be no need to regulate or prohibit employee unions, as they would have the same right to organize as any other group and could negotiate work conditions or not with employers as necessary, free from government interference. If conservatives really wanted Limited Government they would not be as falling down begging eager to make sure military bases and associated contracts stayed in their districts or states the better to keep the local economies alive.

To sum up, the world conservatives have tried to foist on us is unwarranted politically, is not morally or practically consistent, and is not economically realistic or sensible.

So, the whole conceptual and moral deck of cards of which the conservative movement is supposedly constructed, that of Limited Government, is at best a fraud. At worst, it represents a non-plausible and inconsistent set of policies that are economically neither sustainable nor desirable but which are nonetheless morally hideous and disastrous.

This is why Democrats cannot move towards The Center.

Debunking "limited government"

In his classic 1960 book entitled The Semisovereign People, political scientist E.E. Shattschneider laid out the central dynamic of politics--conflict.

According to Schattschneider, it is the nature of the ruling group or groups to attempt to minimize the scope of conflict by limiting the inclusion of competing ideas and groups within the political process. This is done in two ways. The first step is more formal and consists of configuring the rules so as to prevent conflicts from becoming a part of the political process. The second step is less formal and consists of trying to delegitimize the conflicting ideas or groups in question.

So, when we consider the conservative refrain of "limited government" we should recognize that what they are attempting to accomplish is this second style, delegitimizing of political conflict in some area that is beneficial to them and their patrons. In the case of the "limited government" appeal in particular, the desire is to delegitimize and prevent the expansion of conflict in regards to the economic system, by those--such as consumer groups, unions, welfare advocates, what have you--that would contest the established power of major corporations. The idea is to ensure that certain ideas and debates are not heard and thus are prevented from being considered by the political process and its institutions.

In terms of economic reform, this is the conservative's game. They want to limit the scope of conflict and prevent certain ideas from entering the political and social domain.

Conversely, conservatives are playing the opposite game when it comes to matters of sex and religion. Like their liberal economic counterparts, social conservatives--such as the various "pro-family groups" like FONF, FRC, etc--desire to expand the scope of conflict to include now largely private concerns like abortion, sexual preference, and religious devotion to be a matters of decision for the public sphere.

So, on the one hand, when conservatives repeat the "limited government" phrase it is usually in the context of economic decision making, and they are attempting to limit the public's involvement in economic decision making by way of its constitutional institutions and representives. On the other hand, the conservative's desire for "limited government" does not extend to so-called issues of sexual morality and religious practice, which conservatives would like to make the jurisdiction of the state, rather than the domain of individuals.

[Now, many people would object to my apparent failure to distinguish between what we might call economic conservatives or libertarian conservatives on the one hand, which prefer "limited government", and social conservatives on the other hand. But I am purposely lumping the two groups together because for all practical purposes, they are one and the same. To the extent their ambitions do not overlap and conflict with each other, they are united. And that I would suggest is an apt depiction of the current political situation.]

So progressives should not be intimidated by conservative calls for "limited government" or give in to requests by the media, the other party, or even fellow members of its own party, to, for the sake of phantom popularity, to abandon its goals for a more economically just and inclusive economic and welfare system. Progressives should also recognize that such conservative rhetoric is largely bullshit in so far as it fails to accurately describe much of the conservative's own agenda when it comes to limiting and eliminating the past century's growth of individual rights and privacy.

The New Bill Clinton Admiration Society

And you thought we wingnuts hated Clinton, didn't you? Not true. Oh sure, we know we've said lots of disparaging things about your president, #42. There was that nasty business about him being a draft-dodging, pot-smoking rapist, a disgrace to the presidency and all that. And yes, we did impeach that usurper to the Republican throne. Fat lot of good it did us in the '98 elections. We got Newt good for that. And yeah, many of our bloggers on the Internets, and many of our radio and cable TV hosts continue to repeat many of the same old smears of Clinton even though he's been out of office for over four years now, because when the news is lagging everybody needs a reminder about what slimebags you liberals are.

But it's not true that we don't love the guy. In fact, I dare say we love him more than you liberal scumbuckets do. After all, he single handedly rejuventated our ranks of deluded followers and through his presence, allowed us to create a virtual publishing industry dedicated to rooting out all things Clinton, real and imagined, providing much needed capital and jobs for our many out of work and underskilled staff of "writers". Our biggest accomplishment, Fox news, wouldn't exist without the man.

And he's even useful for our policy purposes. He allowed us to gut welfare. And now, as we still defend our moronic trip to Iraq in search of WMD that didn't exist we can go back to your man's quotes on the WMD that he believed were in Baghdad, too, and use them to justify ourselves to the librul media. And Bill's been a valuable resource on Social Security as well. Your man even said that crappy program was bankrupt (even though we know it's not and don't even know what "bankrupt" in the context of a pay as you go system even means) so don't go accusin' us of making up a Social Security crisis.

Yeah we really like(d) Bill. Even though he was the worst president ever and his administration the most corrupt in history, we'll go quotin' him when it suits us and act like we admire him for a few seconds, forgetting all the vitriolic bile we sent his and your way all those years and continue to do even now. And your libril media will eat it up.

Got Your Values Right Here

Dividin' not Unitin'--

"Most of our families don't look to Hollywood as a source of values," Mr. Bush told audiences during his final campaign swing.
The Washington Times, November 4, 2004

Hollywood, Music Celebrities Tapped For 'Tsunami Aid' Concert
January 15, 2005

Anybody know when the tsunami aid special put on by Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell is on?

In Their Own Words

Selections of conservative thought from Media Matters:

Pat Buchanan: "[W]e [the South] wouldn't lose" the Civil War "the next time out"

Ann Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent"

"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole"

David Horowitz: Democrats, media are "getting Americans killed in Iraq ... because of their
pathological hatred of George [W.] Bush"

G. Gordon Liddy: listening to Hitler "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before"

Pat Robertson on RU-486: "lo and behold, people are dying"

Michael Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"

Feel the love

Where's my lunch pail?

There's a recent post over at Pandagon that basically readdresses the issue of how Republicans have exploited cultural or "heuristic" issues, as Ezra says, in wooing rural and low income white voters to their party while pursuing economic policies that are adverse to the working class needs of these constituents.

The other day, or yesterday, I posted something about how I hope our next presidential candidate embraces more liberal rhetoric and policies and avoids the same mad, futal dash to the "center" that the punditry constantly urges us to do, which I think is counterproductive to building a long term progressive movement, whatever the temporal results of particular elections or public opinion polls would indicate. At the same time I suggested there was evidence to support my view that liberal ideas were more popular than the word "liberal" would indicate, given the general basis of support for universal health care coverage, a fairer, more progressive tax structure, increased aid for disadvantaged groups, etc.

But the counter to that view is that while many voters may in general support liberal policies, they are either not very passionate about them or may hold different conclusions about how these policy goals should be attained or may not understand even in an elementary way what our current policies are and how the party platforms would affect them.

All of this is to say that I think the notion of bringing about a successful realignment in American politics (and I think that's what we're really talking about now, given Republican dominance in all three branches of government as well as in most states) will likely depend on more than a more charasmatic candidate speaking liberally.

While I'm optimistic in some ways about how changing demographics and economics potentially favors Democrats (see Ruy Texeira's book "The Emerging Democratic Majority"), I also have to concede that the Republican message of exclusion and punishment, be it in the form of patriotic rhetoric and symbols, wars and rumors of wars, "less government", affirmative action or whatever the latest gimick is, has a certain appeal, too, that we would be negligent in doubting. Singling out an appropriate "out" group or the "other" in politics has always had its share of adherents. I doubt this strategy will backfire on Republicans until the mess they're making begins to come more to fruition.

So as to the state of the party, if I can insert a football analogy, a comment attributed to Dallas Cowboy coach Bill Parcels is that "you are what you're record says you are". So, if for instance your record is 7-9, there's little basis for qualifying it by claiming such things as "well, we lost four games by five points or less", or "we didn't have our second receiver for three games" or "we won three of our last five". So while I think Kerry performed reasonably well given the circumstances, unfortunately the circumstances are that the party is in bad shape in many places, both geographically and rhetorically. We remain defensive about our policy preferences and are reluctant to play a challenging role when events seem against us. So, we are down a bunch of seats in the House, are approaching dire conditions in the Senate, and have no real spokesperson or message seemingly waiting around to be used to orchestrate our revival.

I've also been thinking about the party's past. It probably would be an exaggeration to say that the progressive movement really didn't start or achieve anything until the Great Depression, given the establishment of some regulatory agencies and the income tax early in the 20th century and the popularity of such figures as Theodore Roosevelt (aka, the Bull Moose). So it probably would be an exaggeration to claim that liberals didn't achieve success until 1932.

But I'll say it anyway. Progressives really didn't get their start until the New Deal, after the conservatives (Republicans in the north, Democrats in the south) had basically run the ship of state into the ground. The economic structure built during the New Deal and later years served to provide a considerable ground of support for the emerging middle class, and consequently, in due time, has been gradually removing the earlier inhibitions of growing centralized private power in the form of corporations and the preferences granted to them, and the dismantling of the welfare state in its broadest form (including direct government assistance as well as more "hidden" forms of welfare through the tax code).

If it took the Great Depression to give progressive policies a platform--and that even with considerable opposition in the south and from Wall Street--there may not be a whole lot of mileage in trying to convince people that the Republicans are screwing them if they don't actually experience it directly in the form of tragedy, which can be linked to the policies their supposed conservative benefactors have been working on behind their backs. Hopefully things won't get to the crisis point, [uh, oh, I'm using a Bush word] before more rational people can be elected and more rational policies implemented. But it's hard to see how the Republican policy of tax cuts forever anywhere and everywhere can continue before we're basically running the government on credit and history, sadly, repeats itself to those who won't remember it. As the private welfare state of subsidized employer health care and retirement pensions declines, people may actually start fretting about the status of the visible welfare state.

So what does all this mean? Should we be willing to embrace a Democratic Party that moves more and more to the right (that's where moving to the "center" will lead) anyway, with the thought that at a minimum moderate, centrist Democrats can at least prevent the passing of the worst stuff from the other side until such time as real changes can be made? Or can we or should we be more bold in our attempts to change the dynamics, despite the disadvantages of doing so?

I'd like to say we should keep up the good fight if for no other reason than to be able to say later that "we tried to tell you so", but that seems a bit hollow. For what its worth, I still hope a leader or set of leaders emerges to challenge the reigning orthodoxy. There's an illuminating passage from the movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis "Thirteen Days" where Kevin Costner's character says to JFK and RFK after a meeting with the military and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, all pressing for immediate air strikes and an invasion of the island: "everybody thinks there's some wise old men out there who know what to do in these situations. Well, there is no wise man, there's just us." Maybe that's our situation as well, that there isn't and won't be any leader or leaders that will emerge. Maybe there's just us. We of the web. Hubris? Maybe. But there isn't right now.

The Sky is Falling

Now that Dean has officially declared for the DNC Chairman race.

Remember the cries from staunch Democrats like Joemomentum Lieberman about Dean's leftishness and opposition to the Iraqi war and how unfit he was to represent the party and lead the country? Well, now that rhetoric's back as Dean seaks to lead the DNC. But before getting into all that, let's go back, shall we, to the days after Saddam Hussein's "capture" in December 2003. The Saddam statue had been toppled, freedom was on the march, and while a few rebel attacks were causing some disruption, we were assured they represented backenders and that with the capture of Hussein, the U.S. was "turning the corner" in Iraq. Well, we've had a few more corner turning events since then. But anyway, here's our fearless Democratic establishment responding to Dean's dismissal of the importance of finding Hussein:

Lieberman said that if Dean doesn't think Americans are safer with Hussein in custody, "he has climbed into his own spider hole of denial." Lieberman [also] said the former Vermont governor "has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign." Those statements, he said, "signal he would in fact take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America's security."

Now, back to the present. Bulworth knows you've heard this story already, but here it is again, courtesy of the Washington Post--lead drum beater for invading Iraq--just so the wingnuts at NRO, LGF, Powerline, Reynolds and Faux and our Democratic officeholders can be reminded. No weapons. And that's actually the good news from Iraq. Bulworth would hate to imagine what would be going over there if Iraqi insurgents had the chemical and biological weapons we sent to Saddam when he was our buddy at their disposal.

Regardless of the situation in Iraq, Dean is still a problem for some Dems, who are very comfortable losing elections, thank you. Here is some new commentary from Lieberman's spokesperson on Dean's DNC candidacy:

"I think Dean did a tremendous job in the primaries -- energizing people, making statements of principle -- and that he has a lot to contribute to the debate," said Dan Gerstein, former press secretary to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). "That said, I think he would be a disastrous choice to head the party because of the image he projects on national security."

"Statements of principle." Yeah, let's not have any of that. Somebody might get upset. The Republicans might not like us, if we go around "making statements of principle". Faux might not invite us on their "fair and balanced" shows if we are too busy "making statements of principle" that are contrary to the Republican Administration's and the conservative media's world view and talking points. Rush certainly won't like us, and we need to try to get on his good side. Then "...disastrous choice...because of the image he projects on national security." I'll give you a few minutes to consider that choice of words. "Image" and "national security." What sort of "image" on "national security" does our gang in DC have now? As my man, The Rude Pundit, declared in October "The world is burning...Do you #$%@& get that!"

Finally, the sky is falling, because as everyone and their neighbor's uncle knows, Democrats need to "overcome the values gap with Republicans". I don't know where to begin to go with this. "A values gap with Republicans."

These values? Or these? How about these? Or we could adopt these values. And what about these?

I wouldn't be discouraged if Rosenberg gets the position, but really, Roemer, Lieberman, Frost, at long last, sirs, have you no shame?

More on '08

Kevin Drum links to this semiserious piece in the Washington Monthly talking up Democratic prospects for '08, from the global, corporate, entertainment and political benches.

What the hell. I'm willing to be unconventional. And it's not like we're loaded with charismatic, clean up hitters who deserve their turn. One stipulation I have, though, is that he or she agree to not run away from the word "liberal". As Ezra says:

We don't need to turn out our base, we need to enlarge it. We need to make liberalism safe and attractive, and we need more Americans to demand more progressivism in their candidate. When Barry Goldwater turned the hell out of his base, he lost by one of the widest margins in American history. His base was too small. When Reagan turned out his base, he won repeatedly. Reagan made conservatism attractive, he made his base -- theoretically the same one Goldwater had -- huge. Which is why the whole idea of bases as monolithic groups is dead wrong, they're amorphous, they fluctuate in size. And they're not the answer. When liberalism is ascendant and its spokesperson appealing, our base will be huge. Until then, it'll never be large enough.

Conservative Traditional Values

Whiskey Bar is back with a great summary of U.S. complicity with the "death squads" in El Salvador during the Reagan Administration.

Thanks to The Poor Man for the link.

What Other Troops?

Kevin Drum makes a good point about the potential for adding more troops to Iraq.

Of course, one option would be to. have. a. um. draft. or something.

Livin' in the 80's

I loved the '80's. I graduated H.S. in the '80's. The '80's station on digital cable's music choice is my fav. Ferris Bueller came from the '80's.

Which is why I don't understand all the fuss being kicked up here and here over recent Newsweek reports indicating the Pentagon plans on or is already using the old '80's Latin American foreign policy model of "death squads" in fighting insurgents in Iraq.

Me, I'm totally '80's, dude, so, should it's reporting prove to be truthful, I welcome this innovation in policy tactics by the Bush Administration. I hope it leads to the killing of more nuns and Catholic priests, like it did last time. While they're at it, I hope they see fit to kill all those other people too, especially the ones that might eventually agitate for land reforms and other democratic changes in the new government. Halliburton won't be successful until the country is ready and prepared for corporate rule. I know there have been some soft heads around here that think the Iraqi civilian population just loves us being over there and all the schools were building for them and all, but the truth is, they're all just a bunch of terrorists and deserve to be appropriately turtured and incinerated. I know some people will claim that "innocent" people will be killed in the process, but really now, we've already killed thousands of them anyway, so what's a few more going to hurt?

Yes, this new policy of aggressive anihilation will be the final step to ensuring that the U.S. military and it's allies can turn the corner in Iraq and protect us all from terra.

Fox Review

Although Bulworth is sick of end zone antics in the NFL, he got a chuckle out of Randy Moss on Sunday. Naturally, Moss's move drew severe criticism from the munchkins on Fox's post-game gong show, Terry Bradshaw, James Brown, and Howie Long. Collectively, they claimed they were "disgusted" and that Moss had no "class". Really? They must not watch much Fox TV.

Speaking of which, anybody watch "24"--Fox's terrorist-busting fantasy drama--last night? Well, the brown-people-terrorists are back, and they've kidnapped the Secretary of Defense, and his daughter, Jack Bauer's new squeeze. Anyway, there's a scene where the Sec of Defense pays a visit to his son, who it turns out is about to participate in a public protest of his father's and nation's militant and self defeating policies. When the son--who by the way is appropriately dressed down with long stringy hair and unshaved--offers his critique of those policies, the father responds by labeling his attitude as being "sixth grade, Michael Moore logic". I guess this was Fox's attempt to continue the smearing of Michael Moore and his likeminded supporters--and we--who question Our Country In A Time Of War.

But the Fox charicature here is muddled. When the son reminds his dad about how our enemies were once our friends, the Sec Defense father tells the son that the world is "more complicated than that", a position seeming at odds with the morality of "good and bad", "right and wrong" emenating unchallenged from the Administration and its mouthpieces. In addition, the Sec Defense confusingly critiques his son's "logic". You mean there's "logic" in the War on Terra? I thought we were in the new era of empire where the Administration concocts its own reality?

Don't know if I'll watch it tonight, where another two hour episode is airing. Last night was eyes-glued-to-the-tube suspense, but the whole matter left me feeling pretty dark. Where's Nicolette Sheridan when you need her?

More "Center" Nonsense

Here's Broder.

And here's a WashPost article about Virginia Gov Mark Warner. Notice particularly Warner's statement--

"There are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who believe the party needs to
reclaim the center," Warner said in an interview on the eve of his last General Assembly
session, which begins Wednesday. "There are a number of figures who can help move the
party in that direction."

Notice he doesn't say "move popular opinion" or "move the political debate" to the center. No, it's "move the party" to the center. And what will the outcome of such a strategy be? A "center" that moves futher and further to the right.

No thanks.

Dear Democratic Officeholder: How about a little less talk about the illusionary "center" and a little more talk about reasserting liberal values and priorities such as civil liberty protections and economic fairness, which we know are more popular in opinion polls than readily acknowledged, and more importantly, are right and necessary for ensuring freedom and justice in an age of militant reactionism and religious conformity.

Washington State GOP Demands New Election for Governor

Bulworth has been pondering this request-demand-plea by the Washington State GOP to have a new election in their state for Governor, after their candidate was declared the loser in the recount.

It seems to me that there are two avenues for my other party friends in that state to pursue in this matter. One, is the legal angle, to which all Bulworth can suggest is that you file a lawsuit or whatever it is that good Republicans do when all else fails.

The second, is of the public relations variety, whereby, at their insistence, and with the widespread good favor the Republican Party has engendered among peoples of all persuasions in the past several years both in Washington and across the nation by their good deeds, kind words, and overall cooperative and Christ-like behavior, they can appeal to a citizenry and opposition party that will be desirous of aiding them in their time of need.

But you need to ask nicely. And say "please".

On second thought, never mind. No, you don't get to have a new election.

Some 1 Million Overseas Iraqis May Vote

However, there has been no decision by the interim Iraqi government to a request by Republican Party members to challenge these ballots, which some Republicans believe may be fraudulent, or consist of known sympathizers of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party.

"We don't know who these people are" remarked Republican Party spokeswoman, Phyllis Shafterfly. "And we know for a fact that many of them do not reside at the addresses to which they registered. At considerable expense we mailed them special registered letters, many of which were returned to us unopened or unsigned", Ms. Shafterfly said.

Still other Republican Party officials complained about the flood of registerants as indicating fraudulent activity by mischevious parties desiring to increase turnout among poorer Iraqis and democratic participation overall. "These people (sic) have no experience at all in voting or with democratic values. It is unlikely they are aware of the issues involved in their election and for that reason, we believe they should not be allowed to cast ballots," said the Republican Party Deputy in charge of elections in Bagdad.

The newly established cable television news media in Iraq is also skeptical of election participation by these foreign Iraqi's. "They don't even live here", explained Bill O'Really, host of the highly rated "Baghdad Factor".

Still other Republican officials in Baghdad expressed hope regarding other efforts to limit the suffrage such as by shredding and discarding ballots from certain jurisdictions or for members registed for parties deemed to be "terrorist" in nature, and by widely circulated reminders that only those Iraqi's with special photo identifications or property deeds--both of which are highly rare among Iraqi's still alive after the U.S. bombing and insurgent attacks--may vote in the upcoming elections, regardless of whether they live in Iraq or the U.S.

We're optimistic that the large majority of these so-called "one million likely voters" will not have their votes counted", stated the head of the Iraqi State Republican Party.

Still in the Holiday Spirit

If you have a lefty blog and would like it listed in the links to the side, write and let me know.

Conservative Contempt for Freedom and Democracy

I swiped this from Left2Right:

Conservatives used to be stunningly forthright in their contempt for equality and dignity. Here's Edmund Burke in 1791 -- once again, kudos to the good folks at the Liberty Fund for getting this stuff online -- sputtering over democratic citizenship and officeholding: "I can never be convinced, that the scheme of placing the highest powers of the state in churchwardens and constables, and other such officers, guided by the prudence of litigious attorneys and Jew brokers, and set in action by shameless women of the lowest condition, by keepers of hotels, taverns, and brothels, by pert apprentices, by clerks, shop-boys, hair-dressers, fiddlers, and dancers on the stage ... can never be put into any shape, that must not be both disgraceful and destructive."

Liberals and democrats won the battle on voting rights, and the sky didn't fall. (A conservative friend once confided in me that no, the universal franchise "wasn't a great idea," but he sighed and agreed it was ludicrous to contest it now. A minor but delicious historical irony is how conservatives of a traditionalist stripe embrace the victories of yesteryear's liberals, the ones their own ancestors so bitterly contested.) Against frantic opposition and predictions of doom, liberals and democrats also won the battle against restricting marriage to same-race couples. (In the trial that launched those legal proceedings, the judge declared, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.") The ongoing battle over gay marriage is just farther down the same road, which is not to say that gay marriage stands or falls with voting rights or interracial marriage.

Yeah, it's a shame America's not the same country it was in 1789, huh? Remember this vision of the conservative "ideal" the next time you hear about the need for "strict constructionalist" judges and other attempts to turn back the clock on individual liberty.

Everything's Black and White--Except When It's Not--Morally Absolute Politics II

If like me you're confused by conservatives who claim to believe in moral values and to support moral absolution in the political arena but seem to have a strangely selective--and highly self-serving and self-justifying--process for determining when such moral absolute distinctions apply, then you're not alone.

But I'm here to help. Here are some clues to recognize when the issue shouldn't be viewed through the lense of morality or absolute values:

1. If the certain something is an emblem or matter of "heritage". This "heritage" idea comes around a lot when someone wants to wear a confederate flag on their prom dress, paint a confederate flag on their pick up truck, or include a confederate flag symbol in their state's State flag, or attend functions sponsored by associations that celebrate the "historic South". While not celebrating the slavery of the old South, or even the segregation of the past mid century South, mind you, although if they could reverse those decisions, they would, all the conservatives really want us to know is that if something seems unjust to us or others, then we're guilty of "political correctness".

2. When the conservatives "aren't especially interested in the subject". Such apparently is the case with blubberline and the Tom Delay affair(s). Just not interesting. So no moral issues at stake here.

3. If the issue involves guns and shooting defenseless animals.

4. If the issue involves "patriotism" or a war for whatever purpose and conducted in whatever manner against whatever enemy even if said enemy was once and not long before an ally of ours, so long as it's sponsored by a Republican administration and can be used to generate profits for American military companies and serve as a wedge issue to keep flagwaving, jingoistic concerns up front and other less comfortable, social welfare or civil liberties issues to the back.

5. If from the perspective of conservatives, the initiators or the subject of an issue are "politically motivated" or "notorious partisans", than the issue doesn't fall under the perview of morally absolute politics.

6. If the conservative is "just kidding around" about torture or exterminating non-Christians.


So what's the lesson for progressives here?

To be like a conservative when challenged on an issue and avoid being pelted with the stones of moral absolution we need to claim that our position is based on either a matter of (a) "heritage"; (b) patriotism; (c) our "just not being very interested in the subject"; (d) our need to just "let off some steam"; and that our opponents are (e) politically motivated, notoriously partisan hacks and; (f) persecuting us with "political correctness".

Please feel free to add any additional items as necessary.

Conservatives and Fascism

I couldn't have said it better myself.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001028.html#more

Patriotism as Instinct

I was rereading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity this weekend and noticed where he mentioned patriotism in the context of his defense of a higher moral right that was separate from an "instinct" to do good or to save others or whatever. Basically, Lewis included patriotism as one of several instincts that were neither good or bad, but which like other instincts, like let's say the sex instinct for argument sake, which needed to be regulated by a higher morality. This made me think of how conservatives have made patriotism in general, and "support" for our troops in particular an absolute moral value, a kind of a mandatory social response that presumably one should not question. But it is not. As Lewis notes, patriotism can be taken to an extreme where the absolute right or good is forgotten, and other people are made to suffer unjustifiably.

I was thinking of this line of argument when I happened upon James Wolcott's site this morning and read this post on the article from The Economist about the American conduct of the ongoing war in Iraq. After a holiday of continued tributes to "the troops" on every program from football to beer ads, I wonder at what point we raise the issue of our troops' conduct and attitude and of the overall war effort. The "support the troops" rally cry is the hallmark of political correctness and is pressed on us in a subtle but emphatic attitude that warns off dissent for the war, defended always in the name of "fighting for our freedom". But everyone except Faux News and Clownhall.com knows the war there has nothing to do with our freedom.

A couple weeks ago, one of my blogging colleagues (Roger Ailes or No More Mister Nice Blog, I can't remember which), reflected on their sympathy for the troops and concluded that they supported the troops (and presumably their families)--to a point. It's hard to say what I or any of us would do there were we trying to survive, but the troops have for voluntary and to a large extent for attitudinal and ideological reasons put themselves in the position of armed warrior in a hostile land serving at the whim of their CIC, who, surveys tell us, they support.

So, for reasons relating to moral right, I don't think the troops should be off limits to criticism, or their political (but not economic) supporters given a free pass on the "values issues" given their blind and relativist support for American military operations there and anywhere, whenever a Republican president and Republican congress are in charge.

New Year, Same Old "Christian Right"

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18309

I suspect the reason for the dirth of commentary on the Tsunami from our friends on the Christian Right is they figure it's a creation of the "liberal media", and is, at best, unworthy of their attention, and at worst, represents a diversion from the really vital issues like gays, Christmas, and the need for more "strict constructionist" judges.

Moral Relativism, Special Republican Edition

Republicans believe in moral absolutes, Democrats believe in anything-goes, moral relativism.

But should you be a Republican, and should in the unlikely event you be accused of chicanery of various sorts, here are the recommended steps you should take:

1. Blame your accusers and deny you did anything wrong;
2. Change the law stipulating that party leaders in Congress step down after an indictment has
been issued;
3. Change the House Ethics Committee rule to require a majority vote (rather than just a tie) to
pursue a formal investigation;
4. Fire the current chair of the House Ethics Committee and replace him or her with a Texas
homeboy who "really knows the procedures";
5. Change the office of authority responsible for prosecuting one of your alleged misdeeds so that
a Republican homeboy handles the investigation;
6. Change the office of authority responsible for prosecuting your other alleged abuses of power
and illegal activity so that another Republican homeboy handles the "investigation";
7. Continue to deny responsibility for any misdeeds while continuing to attack the character of
your accusers and other, non-Republican legal authorities.
8. If ethical problem or accusation of lawlessness on your part re-occurs, rinse and repeat.

Dean for DNC

It will probably not be a surprise to any of you reading this blog or to those of you who saw my movie that I backed the Vermont Governor for President and am now mustering all of the resources at my command to see that Howard Dean becomes the next DNC chairperson.

There are three main reasons why I support Dean for the position:

1) Organizational Wherewithal. His was an original candidacy that stressed grassroots activity and new communications tools (i.e. the Internet, Meetups, etc) and that after his withdrawal focused on funding, nominating and electing state wide and local officials across the country.

2) Attitude. "What I'd like to know is...." Who among us can forget his address at the California Democratic Committee last year, challenging the timid party leadership in Washington to fullfill its duty and oppose the bad policies and scorched earth politics of the other party? Or his caustic response to the capture of Saddam Hussein, when the conservative party and its American media flunkies tried to snow us with the idea that the deposed Iraqi leader had been a grave threat to our country and that his capture would mean and end to the insurgency in Iraq, a critical marker for the War on Terra, and the beginning of a peaceful reconstruction in Iraq? Remember that? Dean will take the Republicans and the corporate media to task and be unapologetic in doing so.

3) Intangibles. It may be that the position of DNC chairperson is overrated, but if nothing else, he'll have official standing, and will therefore be someone the media will call on for reactions to current events, and someone who most people in the country will recognize when he's speaking for the Democratic party be it on the cable TV shoutfests or the Sunday morning snoozeathons. After so many years of weak responses from our congressional representatives, it will be encouraging to have a bold spokesman for a change.

-----

Just one thing, Howard. Sometimes you go out of your way to make it seem like you're a conservative on some matters like the deficit or gun control. Please don't do that. It's OK if you want balanced budgets and think states should have jurisdiction over gun rules, just don't make it seem like you think the conservative emblem is something we should be trying to attain. Conservatism is backward, authoritarian, fundamentalist, anti-Democratic, anti-freedom and anti-individual. Conservatism is not something to be desired, it is something to be opposed, and rigorously.

Good luck.

Best of the Web

Majikthise has a great piece on the separation of church and state, or rather, a short but thorough rebuttal to the "America is a Christian nation" mythology.

Steve Gilliard has an alternative take on that "man of conviction", Reggie White, who died Sunday.

You know, I think it should take more than a willingness to condemn an unpopular minority group--gays--as White did, and the appropriation of ministerial credentials--as White had--to qualify one as a man or woman of "conviction". How about while speaking to the State Assembly of a largely rural state, where the "sport" of hunting is probably widely revered, say something about how you think the shooting of deer and other innocent animals for fun is an obscenity and probably not well thought of by the God that created them. Try that, and than come back to us and claim to be a man or woman of "conviction". Until then, he's just a moral blowhard willing to say things he thinks most of his audience agrees with and which doesn't imperil his own lifestyle.

To Populist or Not To Populist...State of the Party V

Now, before we go off and spend the next three pre-Iowa-caucus-2008 years making horse race predictions as I just did in the last post, we ought to get back to this business of message. I've already laid out the parameters of what I think our approach should be on campaigning in the South (yes) and the priority civil liberties issues should have in the next few years, but there's also this little matter about economic policy, and as Thomas Frank suggested in What's The Matter With Kansas, having we Dems go back to a focus on populist economics as a counter to the culture war the Repubs have been waging. As my concern with civil liberty issues probably suggests, I don't completely agree with Franks' emphasis on economics over culture, if that is indeed what he arguing. But I do thing there's good policy and good political grounds for Democrats to pursue a focused, and bold, approach to economic policy that challenges many of the conventional myths that conservatives have been spinning for the last couple of decades.

The root of this New Democratic Economic Populism is philosophical and from a political psychology standpoint, as much about reframing issues as about concrete policy alternatives. While I will elaborate on my basic philosophy in hopefully greater clarity in the days and months ahead, my basic point and plea to the Democrats is to say out loud at every forum that the conservative spin about "less government", the wonders of "capitalism" and the magic of "free markets" and "individualism" is a bunch of gobblydogook. The "free market" as conservatives revere it, doesn't exist. Capitalism doesn't spring up from the soil unbidden, ready to work its god-given majesty to all who will sacrifice themselves to its mercies. Capitalism, the economy, and the "market" is a fabrication. It is a construction. It requires an infrastructure and rules. And favors. And privileges. Now, what conservatives want is for people to believe that government and society have no role to play in ensuring some measure of economic justice or wellbeing, while on the other hand, allowing and encouraging government institutions to go on quietly existing to maneuver through means of regulations and legislation that the economic needs of corporations are provided for.

Maybe you get where I'm going with this. From an economic populism standpoint, perhaps for Democrats the return to power is a matter of "less is more". Perhaps, instead of calling for greater public spending and the higher taxes needed to support it, there is a basis for Democrats to focus on pruning the corporations from the public trough. I recognize I'm simplifying something here that is more complex than a matter of attacking corporations in a general sense. And that is not my argument. But I do believe there are plenty of avenues, both philosophical and tangible, to refocus Democratic economic policies towards leveling the playing field by removing corporate preferences and subsidies from the public sphere, rather than attempting to add additional spending programs and layers of bureaucracy.

Which I guess brings us to taxes, and tax policy in particular. The Rogue Progressive, Rogue that he is, is talking economic heresy for Democrats. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it's a good read, and maybe even good heresy.

Like the Rogue, I've begun to wonder whether the progressive income tax is either good policy or good politics for Democrats. Before the Rove machine began floating the idea of ending certain tax exemptions (deducting state and local taxes from fed income tax, the health insurance write off for corps, the mortgage interest deduction) as part of a tax reform package, I'd been thinking much of the same thing, but from a more liberal vantage point. Simply put, I believe the progressive income tax, such as it is, is more a cesspool of inequities than a means of "progressive" policy, both in the forward thinking as well as redistributive senses of the word.

Should Democrats consider the in-name-only progressive income tax as the gold standard of tax policy or should we, as a part of unmasking the hidden role of government and the disparities it creates, see the income tax as a viable basis for reform, from a progressive standpoint?

Most people don't realize the degree to which their livelihoods depend on certain features of the tax code and other indirect and hidden dimensions of government driven economic policy. The progressive income tax, with its host of subsidies, tax deductions, and hidden incentives, has created a situation where the government role in the economy is not well understood and has been the breeding ground for conservative misinformation and scorched earth politics that needs to be countered.

As the Rogue Progressive implicitly argues, conservatives have used liberal support for government programs as a whipping boy while continuing to work the levers of government to serve its own inequitable ends. As we continue to grasp the circumstances of being out of power, Democrats should reconsider our tax and economic policy positions and be prepared to branch out in new, if challenging directions.

Dude, Where's My Primary?

Matt Yglesias has a bit on the presidential nominating process, which is a subject that's crossed my mind a time or two as well. Matt semiseriously proposes a type of playoff system where two nominees would compete in each state and the winners would face off in other states until only one was left standing. The underlying theme seems to be that the current system, where one or two states end up determining the nominee before any of the rest of us get a say in the matter (other than that form of speech represented by credit card contributions to our preferred candidate(s) ), is lacking in excitement, widespread participation, and questionable decisions.

I'm not sure what the solution is, and since this is a blog and not a journal or newspaper I can think out loud and make up stuff as I go along (oh, they do that in journals and newspapers, too, oh well). Now, as everyone and their uncle knows, the primary system was instituted to give The People a voice in choosing nominees, as opposed to the process where party bigwigs and big city bosses picked nominees in smoke filled rooms.

But has the primary process accomplished that? Considering this last go around was over after NH, we may have had fewer people voting in those two caucus-primary states than would have voted on the convention floor, the old way nominees were picked. OK, I'm exaggerating. But it does give me an opening to talk about what I really want to talk about--the conventions.

As a political junky, I'd love to see the primary season be competitive up till the conventions and have the convention open without any one candidate with the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination, requiring an actual vote on the floor, and thus less attention given to the parade of speeches now that no one pays any attention to.

Of course having a competitive primary season and open nominating session at the convention has drawbacks. It creates money problems for one, as it makes it less likely for the eventual winning nominee to have the adequate cash on hand to devote to beating the other party's candidate because the money lenders have not been able to direct their resources to any one candidate. And there are some who would say a more competitive, drawn out and combative primary system would damage the eventual nominee for the general election.

All probably true to a certain degree. So we're back to square one. How do we come up with a system that ensures greater participation, is more competitive and open to divergent messages, and most importantly for all, is more interesting to us bloggers?

Interestling, however flawed the current system is with Iowa and New Hampshire hogging the spotlight, the current system doesn't actually preclude the possibility of a competitive and longer primary season and an actual battle for the nomination at the convention, if you're in to that sort of thing. It just so happens that it hasn't worked out that way very often.

But there have been exceptions. Consider 1992. Then, there was a favored son in Iowa (Harkin) and to a certain degree, in NH (Tsongas). So neither of those states were considered as critical as they turned out this year. Clinton didn't win Iowa or NH and yet hung on long enough to get to the south and to bigger states which put him over the top. So we can have an interesting, informative, and attention drawing primary season with the continued presence of Iowa and NH at the top of the batting order.

If memory serves me correctly, the assumption going into this past campaign was Iowa was Gephardt's state, Kerry had NH, and Edwards would take SC, a three way split for the first three states on the calendar. But it turned out that the Iowa electorate felt Gephardt's time had passed, and obviously even before then, the emergence of Dean as a viable and compeeling candidate prior to the Iowa vote relegated Gephardt to third of fourth string in Iowa. And we all know how it turned out from there.

So what does all this mean? What alternatives are available for the party in designing its primary nomination system? It depends on what the party and its likely contenders' goals are. As I indicated above, the front loading of the system was designed to get an early nominee, who could then soak up campaign funding and campaign in the spring without being attacked by fellow Democrats. And even though that was how it essentially came out this time, there's no certainty that even with a front loaded schedule, that the same would occur in 2008.

But there are other party goals than those of giving the eventual nominee a financial and political cushion. The party also has an interest, or at least it should, in building up state party candidates and infrastructures. With that in mind, it might be in the interest of several states to put forward "favorite son" candidates whose name recognition and other resources within a state could serve to ensure that not anyone candidate ran away with the nomination before the rest of us had a chance to contribute to the debate and selection process. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily work in all situations. But it could serve to bring heretofore unheard or not widely known voices out into the open and help sustain an interest in the local and state party figures and party apparatus. I realize that others have made similar if inchoate arguments. For example, Donna Brazille talked about this prior to the past campaign as an alternative for some candidates and states.

Which I guess brings us to talking about the 2008 campaign. Assuming the primary calendar doesn't change substantially before then, what are we likely to see? Here is the pool of potential candidates as I envision it: Edwards, Bayh, Gore, HRC, Kerry, Dean, Biden, and I'll throw in Feingold and Mark Warner as wild cards. Some of these will not run, and there will likely be some not on this list who will. If I'm missing any obvious names, let me know. But this is probably the group.

My bet is that Kerry, HRC, and Gore, should they make noises about running, will receive mixed support, leaving the field relatively open, and without a clear front runner or shoo-in winner in either Iowa or NH. But then again, neither is there anyone in this list that would make Iowa or NH a throw away state, meaning that if someone such as Bayh or Biden were to emerge for example, and should he win in Iowa, the dominos might fall, and we'd have close to a repeat of this past year. I hope that doesn't happen. I'd like to cast a meaningful vote in a primary, and maybe be motivated to sign on as a delegate and have the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote at a convention.

Send me your thoughts on campaign '08 and what sort of nomination process you'd like to see.

Kuttner

I saw this in the Post over the weekend and meant to talk about it but it slipped my mind once the week got going. Yglesias had a post on it, though, so I wanted to point it out to any interested.

Basically, Kuttner gives George Will the business about the latter's column on gays, economics and the election.

Go.

Pings

My inner bureaucrat has posted some comments relative to the Social Security program on a few other blogs, here, and here.

Giving Thanks

To Dave Johnson from Seeing The Forest, who's added Bulworth to his blog's links.

Go pay them a visit to show your appreciation. You'll be glad you did.

Getting Religion

Time for a detour. I'm gonna try and waid into the swamp that is "religion in politics".

Or maybe it's "religion in society". In any event, I feel compelled to add yet another voice to this reemerging debate with the hope of trying to answer some basic questions that too often are ignored.

The three or so of you who have frequented this blog are probably aware of my distaste for the religious wrong. There is no love loss between myself and such outfits as Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, the 700 Club, The Family Research Council, and the Republican Party, just to name a few. They're authoritarian and nationalistic, with a little religion tossed in to dress things up a bit. But my basic opinion is that people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Dr. Laura, and Jerry Falwell, again just to name a few, are about as religious as my office wall. Now, there are some who would question my ability to lodge such accusations. After all, I don't know there hearts, etc. True. But I can see and hear their deeds, and since they are the ones questioning everyone else's attitudes and behaviors, I feel free to act as a "fruit inspector" and "test their spirits" as some religious individuals would understand it.

On top of that, I'm bothered by the popularization of Christianity, the condescending and simple minded bumper stickers, and the gratuitous comments by sports celebrities about how they owe everything to God but whose words and actions are all about themselves. I think much of what circulates within the evangelical community and out to the world seems contrived, staged as it were, for some sort of propagandistic purpose. Artificial. And many Christians that are quoted in the news or by exit polls and such come off intolerant and unloving.

So there's plenty not to like.

But, as it turns out, I was actually raised a Christian and I continue to participate in my church in various capacities. So I understand how other Christians and religious people look at the world, even though I differ from many of them as to an application of religious principles.

So why am I a Democrat? That's a good question. Or maybe the question should be What Kind of Christian am I? These are questions I intend to explore in the course of writing this blog.

I'll begin with some questions for my non-religous friends, although if you are religious and want to speak to these questions, you are most welcome.

Now, the recent election has served to bring a host of issues again to the fore, issues which act as fault lines in the body politic, issues which serve as identifying markers for adherents and opponents alike.

Among these issues are Evolution and the accuracy of, and applicability of, the Holy Bible for providing answers to life's questions.

Having been raised Christian, I went to church schools, and so didn't get to learn much about evolution. I took a biological-anthropology course as an undergraduate at a public university, but that was about it.

From what little I know of the Theory of Evolution and its supporters is that the notion of evolution itself does not attempt to explain the origins of matter, the cells that we're told formed the basis for an original lifeform, from which all of us, human and non-human today derive from.
We religous have done what many groups do in attacking their perceived enemies: we've created a straw man to knock down. The straw man of evolution Christians have held up is that of our relation to and descent from apes. Surely, you evolutionists don't think we came from apes do you, we Christians mock in feigned surprise?

But I won't hold that strawman up. I know things are more complicated than that. But I am honestly interested in knowing more. To the extent that you believe in evolution and or don't believe in God as a creative being, can you explain to me, in layman's terms, How Did We Get Here? What Happens When We Die? and What Is The Purpose of Life?

For my Christian friends, let me say you're not off the hook either. I have some questions for you, too. But for now, let me hear from those that can explain the basis of life to me, if that basis of life is understood as being separate from and perhaps in direct conflict with, the view put forward by the Bible.

The White House Considers its "Donald" Problem

As controversy considers to swirl around Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, pays the Secretary of Defense a visit.

Rove: Hi, Donald, whaaattt's happening?

Rumsfeld: Uh, I still haven't received my paycheck, and I--

Rove: Umm, you're gonna have to talk to payroll about that, umkay?

Rumsfeld: I did, and they said--

Rove: And I'm gonna have to ask you to move your desk again... yeeaaaaah.

Rumsfeld: But, I've already moved my desk three times...

Rove: If you could just push your desk back, there's some boxes we need to put in here...yeeaaaaah

Rumsfeld: But there's no space...

Rove: If you could take care of that, that would be terrific, umkay? Thanks, Donald.

Rumsfeld (muttering under his breath as Rove leaves): OK, but that's the last straw, I could shut this whole place down, I could set the building on fire, I could write a book, I could write a book and have this administration condemned...

Watching and Listening

I was in my car last night and turned to C-SPAN radio, which I rarely do anymore, but nonetheless, happened upon the audio coverage of the Social Security conference and the President's speech on the same. I have to say I was mildly impressed. If nothing else, he spoke as someone who had some knowledge of the issues--however distorted--and as if he really believed in what he was pushing. If I was a non-biased person, who didn't follow the issues or know anything about Social Security, I'm tempted to say I might have found his presentation almost compelling in a simple kinda way.

Then I caught his act on televised C-SPAN. Yeah. This was the President Bush from the first debate bad. He looked like he was reading from the 1999 playbook, tossing out blithe one liners in an uncomfortable, verbal cut and paste kinda style. At this point the subjects for discussion were tort "reform" and the need for making permanent his tax plans. I imagine he believes in this stuff, too, but he didn't seem into it. When referring to the need to forever end the estate "death" tax for millionaires, of which the first $5 million or so at least is already exempted or was before he rode into town, he even trotted out that most pathetic of tried and true victimologies, The Family Farm. "If we don't end the estate tax, all our Family Farms will disappear", and all like that, forgetting for a moment our vast unfreemarketlike agribusiness welfare subsidy system, which has pretty much put the kabosh to the 16 or so family farms still left in the USA, but that's for another time, and for another conference, when the subject is something other than the economy, and Social Security, and how we just need more of that good old fashion Republican gospel of tax cuts, less government, and individual responsibility and everything will be alright drivel.

When calling for changing the malpractice system (or at least that's what I think he was talking about), he acknowledged a drug store owner or something in the audience from Mississippi of all places who had apparently become a part of some class action lawsuit that caused her and hers problems. Now, there wasn't any mention of what the case was about, or what the responsibility of the business owner in question may have had. Nothing. Just a bunch of pap about small town bidnesses, located in good ole southern town squares, serving the people, that shouldn't have to deal with this stuff. The audience seemed to like it, though.

Anyway, I'm thinking of writing more about the President's style, how he's handled, in the sense of what Democrats can learn. An odd angle for someone like me to be taking, I know, but there are probably points to poinder about how Democrats can make use of certain strategies and such, but I don't feel like it right now. Will think it over and get back to you.

Potpourri

Kevin Drum has a bit here on yesterday's Social Security panel.

And speaking of the deficit...

Finally, the White House has released Bernie Kerik's withdrawal letter... (Thanks to Atrios for the link).

What's in a Name?

I was minding my own business this morning, reading the NYT on the ride into work. There was a little story about the president's economic conference yesterday, and panel discussion on Social Security. Along with the story was a pic, showing some apparently serious minded folks explaining the crisis of Social Security to themselves and whoever else might have been listening, which I bet no one else was because the only purpose of these functions is to people watch so you can back to the office or wherever and report on who you saw...

Anyway, back to the article and its accompanying pic and my minding my own business. Four of the people in the pic are gents, and one was a gal. The gal's name was Sandra Jaques. The name rang a bell. I thought for a minute and then seemed to recall that frenchman, Josh Marshall, mentioning her. And I was right. Here's the link. Then, that being last week, she was a plain old citizen from Iowa, undoubtedly representin' the common folk with whom the president is so familiar, and no doubt possessing the good ole fashion common horse sense that G. W. likes. Then also, that being last week, she was affiliated with some outfit called Women for a Sound Social Security Choice.

Now, as I mentioned a few days ago, I'm pretty up to date, or so I thought, with all the doo-dad organizations out there pressing for privatizing Social Security, but I hadn't ever heard of this cult. Funny thing, too, that Josh did a little googling and couldn't find her or the organization either. But in the pic--and you were probably wondering when I'd get back to that--the woman's affiliation was now listed as something called FreedomWorks. Now, this is a gang that apparently has its origins in one of the Jack Kemp groups, Empowering America, Down with Government, Up With Free Enterprise, or whatever.

So what happened? Did the existence-nonexistence of this Women for a Sound Social Security Choice cause a problem to where a new affiliation had to be added? I was pleased to see that this FreedomWorks society does have a webpage at least, so probably exists to a certain extent, at least in the figment of a few people's imaginations, with the time and inclination to set up a webpage and with the intent of hoping people think they're a, you know, actual interest group, with real, you know, members who contribute and care about the stuff they're selling.

Anyway, there's a lesson here, I think. I'm not sure what it is, but maybe something along the lines of, hey, when you're doctoring up your resume, make sure the employer or association you list can actually be identified somewhere so people won't think you're either a lying suckup or nincompoop.

War, What is it Good For?

Bradford Plumer had an interesting post a week or so ago, basically asking, Hey, What's Our Military Actually For?

It's an interesting question given some things I've wondering about lately, too. It's easy to get lost in a debate that has been framed by others to where the options are between tough and more tough plans for fighting terrorism, whatever that is, where-ever it is. One of the things I'd like to see happen is for some major policymaker to pose that question in a public forum, be it through the media or on the Senate floor.

As Bradford notes, we don't actually face any real military threats in the usual sense of the word, given our location and the minor array of state military forces out there that could or would do us harm, so our large standing professional army and the military industrial complex basically exists for some other reason, but what reason or reasons are those?

I've also been thinking about the draft. It's hard to imagine that the Iraq war would have been fought had we not already had a professional army "on the shelf" so to speak, and not had to go out and draft one. I can imagine a lot of the armchair warriors on and off cable TV would have thought about the whole thing much differently if a draft was required to fight it. It seems to me that the existence of a large military force provides a greater incentive to wage war than would otherwise be the case.

And of course there are budgetary and political implications as a result of the prior establishment of military bases, that, might like other pork, politicians are loath to take back once they've gotten communities hooked on the resources and sales opportunities they provide. And then there are matters of a more subtle nature, as a military culture infiltrates the public sphere. It seems obligatory for newscasters and sports entertainers these days to pay homage to the troops for "defending our freedom", despite the fact that any slightly objective evaluation of the conditions related to the war in Iraq would lead one to recognize that such is not the case and that whatever is occuring over there has nothing to do with our freedom, but for the need to accomodate a worshipful military culture here, there is little or no questioning of this posture.

Tocqueville worried about the effect the tyranny of the majority had in America in suppressing the freedom of expression. Many of the founders, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in particular, carried concerns about the implications for liberty of having a standing army that could be turned on its citizenry for despotic purposes.

If I was a Mean Spirited, Partisan Hack of a Blogger...

...I might remind everone that the conservatives first response to the now infamous question by a soldier to Sec/Defense Rumsfeld about the lack of armor was to silly-poo the thing and claim that there was really no problem. But I won't do that. If I was a mean spirited, partisan hack of a blogger I might also go on to point out that the next lego in the conservative response factory to the "hillbilly armor" crisis was to blame the questioner and the press for planting the question, but I because I'm not a mean spirited, partisan hack of a blogger, I won't do that. And if I was a mean spirited, partisan hack of a blogger I could go on to point out that the third conservative response to the "hillybilly armor" crisis has been to make a 180 degree to turn to actually admit, that, yes, when we really get down to it, Rumsfeld's response to the question, and his overall attitude towards his responsibilities and handling of the war in Iraq has sucked, and that Bush should dump the guy.

But because I'm not a mean spirited, bitter, partisan hack who enjoys pointing out conservative hypocrisy and flamfloonery, I won't do that.

This episode and the whole approach to the world we've witnessed the last few years kinda reminds me of that scene from Apocolypse Now where after finally tracking down the butcherous Colonel Kurtz, Martin Sheen's Captain Willard listen's to Kurtz complain about the Army's not liking his methods and then turning to Willard, asks, "Do you disagree with my methods"? Looking out at all the wreckage and hung bodies, Willard says, "I don't see. ..Any method."

I don't see...Any method. Do you?

Will the Liberal Writing the "Doug Giles" Columns Please Stop?

I am making a public appeal that whichever liberal blogger has been writing the "Pastor" Doug Giles columns over at the Heritage Foundation's idiot forum, er, website, Townhall,com, to please cease and desist.

Yes, it's been amusing at times. It's been hiliarious seeing such ludicrous rantings on such a prominent wingnut site get all this attention. But now it's just getting ridiculous. Sooner or later, even the ignoramuses there are going to catch on that the "Pastor Doug" columns are a joke and a parody. Nobody could be as stupid and backward as the guy pretending to write this column is.

I've long suspected that the real author behind "Pastor Doug's Clashpoints" is Michael Berube. You've seen some of his satire, what do you think? Or if anyone out there has any suspects you want to put forward, I will make them available here so they can be investigated. In any case, the column must be stopped. Before it's too late and they catch onto us.

Office Space 2: The White House

Infamous consultants Bob and Bob have been hired to vet President Bush's cabinet nominees as the administration prepares for its second term...

Scene 1: Department of State nominee, Condoleeza Rice, enters interview room.

Bob and Bob: Donna Rice?

Rice: No, my name is Condoleeza Rice and I'm the President's National Security Advisor.

Bob and Bob: 'Cause we just loved your work on that boat, the Monkey Business.

Rice: You have me confused with someone else. I was the Provost at Stanford University, and I-

Bob and Bob: Do you still talk to Gary Hart?

Rice: Gentlemen, please, now unless you have any real questions for me I really must be going...
(Rice leaves)

Bob and Bob: How about that, that Donna Rice woman's going to work for the President! Well, so much for vetting this one...who's next?

(Bob and Bob open the folder of information for the next nominee, Margaret Spelling, nominee for the Department of Education)

Scene 2: Margaret Spelling enters...

Bob and Bob: Tori Spelling?

Spelling: Huh?

Bob and Bob: Weren't you on Beverly Hills, 90210?

Spelling: I don't understand what you mean? I thought I was here--

Bob and Bob: I loved that show. But I bet you really loved that show...

Spelling: Am I in the right place? What is this?

Bob and Bob: What was your favorite 90210 episode?

Spelling: Do you mean that show with that guy Dylan and that horrible girl, what was her name?

Bob I: I always liked Andrea, never thought she got the attention she deserved, very sensible gal.

Spelling: Excuse me, but what does this have to do with education?

Bob and Bob: Um, ma'am, we're done here. Thanks a lot for coming, and tell the 90210 gang we said "hello".

(Spelling leaves)

Scene 3.

Bob I: Who's next?

Bob II: Looks like a Bernard Kerik.

Bob and Bob: Hi there, Bernard, is it?

Kerik: Just call me Bernie.

Bob and Bob: Bernie, now, refresh our memory if you would, you're here to interview for what job again?

Kerik: Department of Homeland Security

Bob II: Is that the company that puts out them color warnings?

Bob I: Yeah, what goofball thought of that?

Bob and Bob: OK, Mr. Kerik, we're just trying to get an idea about what President Bush's nominees do with their day. Can you tell us about what you've been doing?

Kerik: Just got back from Iraq, where I was training the new Iraqi police force as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. But my wife called to say our the addition to our house was completed so I came back. There was lots of bombs going off all the time over there anyway, so I didn't mind gettin outta there if you know what I mean...

Bob and Bob: Now, Mr, Kerik--

Kerik: Bernie...

Bob and Bob: Ok, Bernie, now we see you filled out these forms asking about your financial information, your assets, your hired help, and whatnot.

Bob I: Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody with nanny problems or mob connections gettin in to the White House, if you know what I mean. You never believe the types of people that apply for jobs like this.

Kerik: Nah, don't worry about that.

Bob and Bob: So no problems we should know about?

Kerik: None just that I'm in tight with Rudy, so let the President know that.

Bob and Bob: Great, Bernie. Good luck.

(Kerik leaves)

Bob II: OK, are we about done, who's next?

Bob I: Last one--Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General, whatever that means...

Scene 4: Alberto Gonzalez, nominee for Attorney General enters.

Bob and Bob: Hi there, Alberto, is it?

Gonzalez: Yes, that's right.

Bob and Bob: So Alberto, why do you want to work for the government?

Gonzalez: Well, I'm one of President Bush's most loyal subjects, er, followers, er, advisors...

Bob I: Glad to hear that. Anything we should be concerned about as we make sure you're suited to be President Bush's, uh, general attorney?

Bob II: Is this a military job?

Gonzalez: Well, no, not really, although some of my work has had military implications.

Bob and Bob: Anything we would have heard about?

Gonzalez: You guys here about the "torture" memo?

Bob and Bob: YOU WROTE the TORTURE MEMO? Wow, awesome, man. Man, we loved that book.

Bob I: Hey, don't let us keep you any longer.

Gonzalez: It was pleasure meeting you guys.

Bob and Bob: Hey, the pleasure's all on this side of the table.

(Gonzalez exits)

Bob I: Ah, I love this work.

Bob II: Yeah, too bad it only comes along every four years.

Bob I: What's next?

Bob II: Think we can get a TV gig with Fox?

Tanned, Rested and Ready

MyDD has a blurb today about Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold, who, according to Hotline, has a potential interest in a 2008 run for the WH.

Although we haven't even gotten to dubya's inaugural yet, and many of us are still licking our wounds from the past campaign, two factors: the increasingly elongated presidential campaign; and the need for someone, anyone, in the Democratic world to arise as a spokesman for the party, means that the search for, and examination of, potential leadership is getting an early start, too.

In short, I tend to agree with MyDD's initial assessment of Feingold: he's an intriguing possibility. But he needs more to hang his hat on than campaign finance reform. His was, I believe, the only vote against the Patriot Act in the U.S. Senate, a mark of courage given the hysteria of the moment. He's midwestern, for those of us worried about candidate geography. And he doesn't have the same level of baggage that either Hilary, Edwards (inexperience) , or Dean would bring to a race.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's important that whoever wants the nomination start to make an impact now, and not wait until the snows of Iowa and NH in January 2008 to start talking. Despite the frivolousness of the past campaign and the temper of the media, important policy issues are at stake in the next months and years and as the recent Beinhart-Will Marshall, Al From-led attacks have demonstrated, the absence of a comprehensive and compelling Democratic counter-narrative has created a vaccuum of rhetoric and ideas that is itching for leadership and direction.

On this last point, it is probably worth noting that neither Kerry or Edwards (or Dean really for that matter) has gone very far in challenging the underlying premise of the current, so-called War on Terrorism other than that they would fight it better, harder, and with more global partners. It's a long post, but Descrates gives us some idea, based on earlier remarks by the sadly departed Edward Said, about what such an alternative vision might revolve around. Give it a read.

Anyway, Senator Feingold, and any others, we await your contributions and your voices in the days ahead.

The Latest

I sincerely regret my derth of postings lately but my inner academic is finishing a paper, I stayed up late Sunday night to watch the Redskins (lose), and my cadre of fellow bloggers have been covering recent events nicely.

Speaking of which, here's a great takedown of the Bernie Kerik debacle. Hilarious. Wolcott doesn't post as regularly as I could use but when he does he hits it out of the park.

On a more cautionary note, I've been reluctant to invade the brewing debate on Social Security "reform" because of my association with friends who may or may not work for the agency, and on the basis that my inner government worker may be compromised.

However, two points on Social Security "reform" are worth highlighting: First, as Kevin Drum, MaxSpeak and others have patiently shown, there is no Social Security crisis. As long as the Social Security Trust Funds register a positive balance, which they are projected to do until 2042 at last count, Social Security checks will go out, regardless of however much of a deficit the government is generating or what war we're in. At the point at which the Trust Funds are no longer in surplus (i.e. 2042-ish), the system will still be generating enough in payroll tax income to fund upwards of 67-70% of expected benefits, which because of the rising growth of wages on which benefits are based, would still be MORE than what retirees are getting today, EVEN after inflation is taken into account.

The second point is a more delicate matter and pertains to any potential strategy used to oppose the move towards Social Security privatization. While this blog will not put forward such a strategy or pontificate on the relative wisdom of either adamantly opposing "reform", submitting an alternative plan, or negotiating with the administration and congressional Republicans on the matter, the consideration of a little history may be in order, and for that I turn you over to our friend Mr. Digby. (Warning: the post to which this link is made is of an especially graphic and disturbing nature, revealing in excruciating detail and depth the utter contempt and brutality of the then out, but now ruling party. Please read with caution).