I've Very Angry

Why am I angry, you ask? I'll tell you why.

Because I didn't get to write this:

I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.

and

An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance.

and

But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable.

But that is not all. I'm also angry I didn't get to write this:

And now I have to see I didn't get to write this either:

And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are "the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement" and Paul Hollander calling it "the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education." (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.

And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank "cakewalk" Gaffney to say things like "The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy" or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a "Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States." These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.

And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill's politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams' politically incorrect ravings --- the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.

Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics' facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a "mental model" that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I'm not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I'm talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don't hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.

So, I think you will agree with me that I have a lot to be angry about. I didn't get to write these great pieces. But thanks to Juan Cole, James Wolcott, and Digby, we can all read them. Thank you gentlemen for your courage and wit in articulating that which I am unable to express.

The Iran Blues

I don't know about you, but I'm so ready to wack Iran. Well, not me, actually, but I'm totally down with somebody else doing it. Who says progressives can't be chickenhawks?

I'm just not sure who that somebody would be. We can barely staff the military in that other Arab-muslim country we're occupying, er, liberating now. What? Iran isn't Arab? Oh. Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, if we invaded Iran, we might have to have a draft. Even though I'm overage, there are a lot of other people who could still serve. And I'm pretty sure that Brit Hume, Bill Oh-Really?, and those other Faux gangbangers have kids of their own that'll serve. I'm not sure how old Hannity is, but I'd recommend him, too.

Invading Iran would be awesome. I wish MSGOP and Faux would start putting up their Countdown Iran banners. I'm bored with Iraq already. We've been there long enough and these intermittent rebel attacks just don't do much for me. I miss those retired generals and their topographical map models, pointing our where The Troops are and which bomb is being dropped where. Sadly, the Shock and Awe from March 2003 has worn off. Can we have some more?

If Ofgeorge doesn't want to go against Iran, yet, how about North Korea or Syria or both? I suspect that NK would be a bit of a challenge, but then again, as I've said, I'm sure we have plenty of right winger offspring that can serve as cannon fodder, so long as I don't have to go.

Wow, this progressive, chickenhawk stuff is starting to feel good. All I ask is that Ezra and Jesse head to Canada before it's too late.

Bring It On!!!

Report Card

I know the semester has just started, but I'm itchy to start handing out grades. The Senate Democrat's legislative goals, summarized at their website is as good a place to start as any.

Slogan: Security, Opportunity, Responsibility

Grade: D
Comments: Sounds like something thought up by the Republican's host of newspeak jabberwockies


1. S.11: Standing With Our Troops

Increases size of standing military by 40,000 by 2007 and promises greater income support and health care access for those who serve.

Grade: D+
Comments: On increasing size of standing army, please see earlier post.

2. S.12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively

We're going to get those terrorists.

Grade: D-
Comments: essentially adopts neocon rhetoric about taking the fight to the terrorists but throws in some stuff about preventing nuclear proliferation. Lacks creativity.

3. S.13: Fullfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans

Ensure better treatment for our veterans.

Grade: C
Comments: Worthwhile goal, but doesn't clarify change from current policies.

4. S.14: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Increase minimum wage, better trade protections, end tax breaks for outsourcing, etc.

Grade: B-
Comments: outside of minimum wage part, unimaginative

5. S.15: Quality Education for All

Fully fund NCLB, increase Pell Grants, some other stuff

Grade: C
Comments: why is college tuition "skyrocketing"? What're the budgetary implications?

6. S.16: Making Health Care More Affordable

allows drug reimportation, tax credits for businesses, "protect Medicaid"

Grade: C-
Comments: Does the notion of sending of our subsidized and overpriced pharmaceuticals to Canada, where they get priced down, and then reimporting them strike anyone besides me as being just a little bit bizzarre?

7. S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home

federal standards for elections, same day registration, shorter lines, paper trails, etc.

Grade: B
Comments: The best of the lot so far. Any thoughts on federal redistricting guidelines?

8. S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries

gets rid of "donut" in recent Medicare prescription drug legislation and allows govt to negotiate lower group prices with Pharma.

Grade: C+
Comments: Sounds expensive

9. S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future

Restores Pay as You Go and sequestration; restricts misuse of reconciliation

Grade: B
Comments: Sidesteps sunsetting of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

10. S. 20: Putting Prevention First

more $ for family planning and contraceptives

Grade:
Substance: C
Symbolism: B+
Comments: Right to choose?

Total Grade: C-
Comments: while recognizing that these items are intended to look like bills that might actually be considered by this congress and could even pass on a good day, there's not much here that indicates an underlying Democratic ideology or sense of purpose for government; doesn't do much to challenge Republican orthodoxy. What about the Republican "junk lawsuit bill"?

Later: Senator Bulworth offers his own agenda

What I Wanna Know Is....

Ezra Klein reminds us that although heavily marginalized, Democrats are trying to put forward alternatives to the GOP.

That may be. But, "what I wanna know is", why are our representatives still allowing us to get punked over stuff like this? The We-Need-to-Get-Rid-of-Junk-Lawsuits plank has been in the GOP top 10 list for so long it has its own AARP card (yeah, I stold that from Wolcott) and the fallacy upon which it rests is likewise well known, but nevertheless, our guys still seemed determined to bend over and let the GOP give us the business on it.

And I'll admit I'm clueless why we're promoting this, too:

"Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007."
(from S. 11: "Standing With Our Troops")

Huh? We're calling for more troops? If we need greater security (against an army from ?????) and more troops to guard that security, why don't we just bring the ones over in Iraq home? Iraq's had its "successful" elections. The Republicons and the press have told us so.

Of course I'm acting as if bringing the military home from Iraq is a real policy objective that is just waiting for a favorable time. Now, of course it could be, just maybe, that the administration's intention all along has been to establish military bases in Iraq to serve as a visual reminder to Iraq's "leaders" of our desire to better police the Middle East and control its natural resources that we covet. But I don't know why I'd think that.

Open Letter to President George W. Bush

Congratulations, Mr. President.

You've had a very heady time, these last few months. You won re-election and increased your Party's majorities in both chambers. You've just come off a two week period of having given a very lofty, if not entirely realistic, inaugural address, followed by this past weekend's elections in Iraq, and last night, your second-term launching SOTU address, in which you included your eye-popping, opening salvo on the Social Security wars, which is certain to continue to draw considerable attention for at least the next day or two.

But, Mr. President, as the snarly Jack Nicholson character said in As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Mr. President, this is as good as it gets for you and your presidency. There is no more upside. The coverage in Iraq will return to the latest bombing and the calls for bringing the military home will escalate. Your Social Security initiative will certainly fail without at least some Democratic votes, and it isn't looking as if you're going to get many of them, especially after the implications of your plan's private account "offset" and other benefit reductions start making the rounds. The best you can hope for is some face-saving gesture that will make minor adjustments to the system, but that's about it.

I suspect that your tax magic is wearing thin, too. The deficit will continue to grow as long as the war in Iraq continues and will increase exponentially if your previous tax cuts are not sunsetted, as you oppose, in 2010.

And even though you may content yourself with the thought of the friendly Republican majority in Congress, recognize that now, they can divorce you. They have their own campaigns and goals to worry about. Many of them are even now as we speak, making hushed plans to succeed you. Rumours of Iowa and New Hampshire will soon start popping up.

And your congressional partners are busy slitting the throat of any high moral reformation you may have in mind. I know you've been busy, but did you catch the fact that on the day of your SOTU, your Party's majority leader and House Speaker sacked the chair of the Ethics Committee, and two of his fellow members, as punishment for opposing a change in the House rule requiring party and House leaders to relinquish their posts in case they should ever be indicted?

And even though its hard to imagine the prospect, some Democrats are sharpening their knives, waiting to rush in at the first sight of blood. While you can continue to gloat over winning 51% of the vote, the truth is, nobody thought you were going to lose this election anyway. The main party lights are gearing up for 2008. And the party leadership is about to be given over to a very caustic critic of yours, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Yes, Mr. President, this is as good as it will get for you. But at least you have Faux News you can continue to count on.

Best,

Senator J. Bulworth

P.S. Sorry I missed last night's speech. I was under the mistaken impression that Simple Life 3 would be on TV last night and it wasn't, even though I did enjoy the Law and Order: SVU reruns just fine.

The Firing Circle

I really like Matt, but where in the world did this come from?

There's also certainly no need for Dean to serve as the party's chief national spokesman, but my strong suspicion is that this is precisely the role Dean wants to play. We'll have to wait and see, but I have more confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats as party leaders and spokespeople and don't really want to see them overshadowed.

More confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats?! I can think of a Rude Pundit-like response here, but because this is a family-friendly blog, I'll leave it to your imagination.

Kevin Drum seems overly pessimistic, too.

What is it? Is it "the scream"? Is that what you're worried about? The party is in free fall, don't you get that? We keep moving to the center and the Republicans keep moving the center further and further to the radical right. They're about set to undue the New Deal and tell you you're going to like it. Our leadership supported their tax cuts and their war and in the last election LOST more seats in Congress. Again.

He's from Vermont. Is that what's bothering you? The other side wants to turn the country into its version of the old south, and you're getting squishy because the guy's from the land of Ben and Jerry?

Civil Unions? Is that what's bothering you? The separation of church and state is about to be made a swear word and a relic. The other side wants to replace the Constitution with the Book of Leviticus. Is that what you want?

Big Money will leave us. Is that what you're worried about? Democrats outraised Republicans this year for the first time, most of that coming from the Web and small donors. Big Money, don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.

Any questions?

Who Said That?

Welcome to the first edition of our Who Said That? series, where we single out interesting quotes and ask you to choose from among several alternatives the person or group you believe responsible for them.

Ready? Let's begin.

1. "None of us believe that there should be a religious government (in Iraq)"

a. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte
b. U.S. Secretary of State, Ofgeorge
c. Former U.S. head of the Iraqi Occupation, Paul Bremer
d. Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top Shiite candidate in Iraq's recent elections

2. "We should separate religion from policy"

a. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
b. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family
c. Marion "Pat" Roberton, head of television's The 700 Club
d. U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum (R-PA)


3. "If the people want (name of country) to be developed and rise in every aspect of modern life, religion has to be separated from government"

a. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition
b. Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore
c. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
d. Televangelist, D. James Kennedy


Answers:

1. d
2. a
3. c

The Show Me Party

If the new chairman of the DNC doesn't start off his opening speech to the party and the country by saying:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one thing you cannot say about today's Republican Party, and that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. Let's look at what they've shown us.

1. there shalt not be academic freedom;

2. there shalt not be political dissent;

3. there shalt not be a social safety net;

4. there shalt not be a separation between church and state;

5. there shalt not be a right to privacy;

6. remember the Republican Party to keep it holy;

7. thou shalt love and respect thy neighbor except if they're non-heterosexual;

8. and except if they're non-Christian-Coalition-approved religious adherents;

9. and except if they're non-Americans;

10. only white males that own property shalt be free and able to vote"

then their speech will have been a major disappointment.

Why I am not a conservative, reason # 4358

Fred Barnes, of Faux News and the Weakly Standard, goes unplugged.

This has been building for awhile. It was especially high in the lead up to, and during "main combat operations" in Iraq. Dubya's narrow reelection win and the increase in GOP seats in November has no doubt emboldened the conservative establishment in its push to destroy Democracy at home while it obstensibly promotes it abroad.

Now in charge, conservatives would have us forget the Clinton years and the abundance of reckless personal charges they leveled at the president then, smear campaigns that included daughter Chelsea among the targets. Real values, that conservative crowd.

And I expect it to get worse. Naturally, the presence of the U.S. military over seas in an ongoing military conflict provides an extra layer of cover for anti-first amendment conservatives to do what they would do anyway, and that's attempt to suppress any and all opposition.

One hopes conservatives will be seen as overreaching. But I'm not hopeful. Once upon a time, before they seized power, conservatives were seen as the "radicals", the non-status quo party. Recall, if you will, the early estimates of Ronald Reagan, and later, Newt Gingrich. They were viewed as too rough around the edges, too extreme for the mainstream. But now, in the eyes of most of the media, what was radical has become the norm. As conservatives continue their attempts to turn back the clock on social welfare and individual liberty, liberals are busy playing defense on a ground of issues that were once, comfortably thought protected.

Academic freedom and political dissent are on the chopping block.

This is why Democrats cannot "move to the center".

Dean, the DNC and Us

I'm not sure what to make of the fuss and skirmeshes involved in electing the new DNC chairman. As most of you probably know, the executive board of some Democratic subsystem called the association of state Democratic chairs, or something, has voted to support the young Don Fowler for chair over Dean. The vote by the larger association of state chairs is supposed to be today.

Ordinarily, the position of DNC chair is more about organization than substance, and for that reason, while I support Dean, the election of someone else to the position probably wouldn't make much difference. Except. The primacy of Dean in the race and the opposition to him have made the race a larger symbol of the direction of the party. And for that reason, Dean's losing would be a bitter pill to swallow.

But in the big picture view of things, the importance of the DNC chair is less than the existence of a prominent message or messenger, both of which the party today lacks. Organization and "strategery" is more critical when you are trying to disseminate a message and elect candidates across the country. But when you lack a message or compelling cause, the role of organization is only of peripherical impact.

I caught some of the replaying of the conference on Saturday on C-SPAN, getting to hear Fowler, Roemer, and Lindley(sp) address the caucus directly, and a few of the others respond to questions from the audience. There wasn't much of "message substance" covered, just some queries on how to respond to this or that event. I don't know whether to be disappointed by that or not. I know the DNC chair isn't necessarily about message: he or she will more likely reflect rather than direct the party's message. But for those of us who are starving for an unapologetic response to the Republican juggernaut, and a reshaping of the boundaries of political debate that conservatives have continued to shift further and further to the right, maybe our or my expectations have shifted.

Edwards

From Dionne's WashPost column today--

It needs to be clear to the country what our core beliefs are, and the last thing we need is strategic maneuvering," Edwards says. "What people want to see is leadership and strength and conviction. This is about what's inside us. It's not about how we get to the right place."

.......


It's true, of course, that rejecting political calculation can itself be a form of political calculation. Conviction politics was a big winner for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Even President Bush's critics concede -- well, they don't concede anything these days, but they might grudgingly admit -- that Bush's core political edge is just that, the appearance of strength and of standing for something.

But conviction politics has not been in vogue in progressive circles. This era's two great center-left politicians, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, have been resolute Third Wayers, tacking carefully between left and right. The Third Way was a tacit admission of conservatism's momentum.
Edwards is well positioned to offer Third Way 3.0. He's a young southerner, a working-class kid made good whose dad was a deacon in his church. He speaks admiringly of Clinton's skills, particularly the former president's ability to make others feel that he identifies with their struggles.

But Edwards's instincts tell him that tepid politics are exactly what the Democrats don't need now. "I don't think this is about moderate, conservative, liberal," he says. "Americans are looking for strength, an idealistic strength. They want to know what we'd do on Day One if we ran the country."

Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue; it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.
Those who counsel caution, he says, would let calculation push Democrats away from their historical commitments. "They think it's associated with some political label," he says, carefully avoiding the L-word himself. "They think that a lot of people who live in poverty don't vote and don't participate and so they don't think there's a lot of political capital there."

Edwards, who is planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty, is enough of a politician to insist that he wants to advocate not only on behalf of the destitute but also for those just finding their footing on mobility's ladder. But he offers the unexpected claim that the very voters who have strayed from the Democrats would respond forcefully to the moral imperative of aiding the poor.

"The people who love their guns and love their faith, they care about this," Edwards says. "There is a deep abiding feeling of moral responsibility people have about those who are doing everything right and are still having a hard time."

Okay, okay, it's bound to be said that Edwards is making a shrewd political wager that Democrats have tired of capitulation. The test will be whether he sticks with it. It's a fair bet that someone who talks about a real moral issue for the next four years will at least be easier to listen to than politicians who place all their money on yesterday's focus groups.


Here's my problems with what appears to be Edwards' take on the situation:

1) he's afraid of the term--and by extension the concept and past achievements of--liberal politics and policy;

2) The "two Americas" and "we need to help those who are playing by the rules and still can't get ahead" rhetoric is Clinton-est which among other things may cause some people to wonder, hey, haven't we heard this before? Your party had eight years in the WH from '93-2000. Why are the rule-players still struggling?

3) He either doesn't understand, or cares not to address, the nature of the tragedy that is this administration's policies and supporters' agenda, namely, the "Right's" substantive war against the courts, civil liberties, the "wall" separating church and state, "liberals", and other deemed undesirables, by any means necessary, but particularly by consolidating media control and smothering dissent, academic and otherwise.

Yes, we need conviction in our candidates, but we also need an awareness and willingness to confront the country's greatest dangers.

Bulworth Says...

You cannot simultaneously brag that your favorite cable television "news" station is No. 1 while also crying that the media is conspiring against you...

I wished I had watched Nightline last night...

It's funny that somehow affiliation with the ACLU is accorded the kiss of death but affiliation with cabinet secretaries and interest groups who attack cartoon characters isn't...

Dear Christian "Right" Leaders and Members: when you attack cartoon characters you can't expect the public to respect you...

Suburban Guerilla and Steve Gilliard describe U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) to a tee...

Why did you think I was watching Trading Spaces for, anyway?

More Conservative Political Correctness

MyDD has the scoop.

Academic freedom, my ass.

David Horrorwitless is a Big Fat Stupid Dumbhead

And his mother dresses him funny.

Here's What's Left layeth the smacketh down.

The '60's are Dead, Long Live the '60's!

To further understand the conservative agenda, one must recognize the true point of origin for its wrath--the decade that ushered in the end of hierarchy and conformity in American and world politics--the 1960's.

The 1960's are the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, the source of all that has gone wrong with the American experiment. The 1960's are the headline atop the great "backlash myth" as Thomas Frank explains it in What's Wrong With Kansas? , the holy grail of conservative politics.

Liberals must ask ourselves, and our conservative friends, why this is the case. Moral blowhards like William Bennett will be quick to point us to their narrowly constructed list of "moral indicators" and the "decline" of these factors that began when the evil 1960's unleashed their unvaunted rage and rebellion against God's America by protesting the Vietnam War, kicking God out of our schools, encouraging free love and hippy communes, and perhaps worst of all, daring to question the White Christian Male Right To Rule. During the 1960's, that unAmerican institution of "The Courts" began to be used to increase the rights available to all Americans when its executive and legislative institutions failed to respond.

But conservatives will undoubtedly point to things like, "well, teen pregnancy increased, out of wedlock births increased, divorces increased, school violence increased, drug use increased, marriages decreased, abortions increased, disrespect for authorities increased" and so on. For conservatives, America before the 1960's was heaven on earth, where peace, love, joy and unquestioning obedience to the powers that be existed, undisturbed by such ideas as social democracy, freedom of expression, opposition to unjust wars, civil rights, and diversity. Whatever America did on the world stage was perfect and holy. Americans and their institutions were godly and upright. Now, undoubtedly, some of these measures conservatives will recite will have some truth to them. But, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "Hey, freedom and democracy are 'messy' ".

Now, as it happens, I wasn't birthed until 1966, so I can't speak from experience about the years before 1960. But, thankfully, history has managed to record a few things I think bring into question the great conservative claim about the pre-1960 era. There was slavery of course for the first 74 years of our constitutional history, segregation for the 100 years following that, and of course the violence and hatred needed to keep segregation in place.

Before the 1960's, if you're weren't a member of the state religion, you were ridiculed, harrassed, and forced to engage in religious worship anyway. The separation of church and state became a reality.

Before the 1960's, America's right to war was unquestioned, its moral superiority and "exceptionalism" in the world unchallenged by students, professors, or press alike.

Before the 1960's, women were relegated pretty much to the kitchen.

Before the 1960's, people of color didn't enjoy the same rights and protections as white Americans. At this point I'm tempted to say that blacks and other racial minorities contributed as much to society as whites in that they served and died in combat, paid taxes, and maintained families just as other Americans. But that would be to suggest that our rights are earned. I don't believe they are. Thomas Jefferson and many of the constitutional framers didn't believe that either (at least not when they were busy justifying their rebellion against British rule). They believed we were all endowed by our Creator with inaliable rights. For many Americans, this vision hadn't become a reality until the 1960's.

Before the 1960's, it wasn't "politically correct", to use a revived conservative concept, to speak out against the actions of government or those of certain groups where injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ignored or condoned. Now, it is (or until Faux News tell us it isn't).

Conservatives loved the pre-1960 era when they could do what they want and assume that everyone else would either agree with them or not question them if they didn't. Those days are over, and understandably, conservatives are angry.

But Bulworth says liberals should contest the conservatives' treatment of the 1960's and challenge the conservatives' attempts to roll back the clock on civil rights and democratic freedoms. Liberal should challenge attempts to demonize "rights", privacy, and the democratic use of the court system for what they are, conservatives' attempts to recreate their dominant past.

Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to get over the 1960's and recognize their day in the sun is over. When conservatives speak badly of our friend, the 1960's, remind them of what America was really like before then.

The 1960's rocked. So Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to stick it.

The Problem Isn't Bush

I realize that coming from a die-hard, unapologetic liberal blogger, the above title may sound strange, but hear me out.

There's a passage or passages in the excellent David Herbert Donald biography of Abraham Lincoln where the President is listening to general McClellan time after time recite his various and always delayed plans to lauch attacks against cities in the South to which Lincoln increasingly and with ever more frustration responds by trying to get McClellan to recognize that he needs to direct his attacks against the real threat, the Confederate army.

As with McClellan's unwillingness to focus on the source of the Union's main threat from the South, I'm afraid that a lot of what has been passed off as Democratic Party strategy by its operatives and even by some Democratic leaning blogs has been I believe an inordinate focus on the words and actions of President Bush himself, and time staking analysis of current events, as opposed to the more serious and pervasive threat demonstrated by the conservative movement turned establishment itself.

There's lots of analysis on what's going wrong in Iraq from day to day, considerable parsing of the president's inaugural address, and so on. In the most recent presidential campaign, and underlying the Democrats' approach to campaigns generally, seems to be a haphard and uncertain preoccupation with opposing the president based on events as they develop rather than a more thorough and purposely communicated message to the public as to the problem with conservative policies and intentions themselves. This can be seen in the constant references, mostly by media observers, but accepted by some Democratic leaning bloggers as well, for the Democrats to come across "stronger" on national security and so-called "values" issues, to move to the center of the political arena, etc.

The problem isn't primarily the president, who I think we all realize by now isn't terribly interested in the affairs of government, but exists only to recite speeches prepared for him by zeolous staffers, to stuff the bureaucracy and court systems with conservative operatives (which is the same as would be carried out by any Republican president) and to carry on his family's name. The conservative establishment, it's authoritarian and undemocratic ambitions, and its malicious character sleezing and fear mongering appetite should be the most constant target of our (and hopefully the soon to be new Democratic Party heads as well) analysis, strategy, and communication.

Contrary to the chatter among the media that Democrats need to get more conservative, it is the conservative establishment itself that is the problem, and which must be opposed. This is why the Democrats cannot "move towards the center".

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.