In the late 18th century, citizens of the American colonies rebelled against the autocratic rule of England’s King George III and established a country that was to be ruled by a representative government subject to the rule of law. In what became the first democratic experiment since the ancient Greeks and Romans, the United States of America was born and the concept of autocracy was discarded by our forefathers.
Autocracy is defined as government by a single person having unlimited power. While it is not unheard of for autocratic rule to be somewhat benign, often the head of an autocratic government creates a cult of personality, turning the state of governmental affairs into a state of despotism. Under an autocracy, the average citizen has no say in the rules of the land, no recourse against injustice, and no chance to change the course of social or political life. Citizens under the thumb of an autocratic ruler are subject to the whims of the head of state, which creates an environment of uncertainty, suspicion, and fear. Occasionally, an autocratic ruler perpetuates an aura of fairness by establishing a group of citizen legislators who ostensibly have some say in the course of government, but in reality have little or no power to affect the decisions of the autocrat. The Roman government reverted to this form under Julius Caesar and continued in this manner until its downfall.
Democracy, on the other hand, embraces the concept of citizen rule and through its adherence to established laws, created in concert with the will and ideals of the citizenry, offers the average citizen an opportunity for recourse against governmental excesses. True democracy recognizes the need not only for compromise in creating public policy, but also establishes that no single person has a consolidated grip on the reins of power. In a democracy, there is no lifelong ruler, but a temporary head of state whose main task is to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and that the ship of state maintains a course in tune with the will of the citizens. Unlike an autocracy, the democratically elected ruler must work with all the other elected legislators to ensure that social and political policies are benefiting the whole of the citizenry, regardless of their own personal preferences for particular courses of action. Whereas in an autocracy the ruler is subject to no laws or penalties at all, in a democracy the nominal head is bound by the same laws as all other citizens and subject to the same penalties if those laws are broken.
Autocracies are maintained by force of will, force of power, and a blind acceptance of the people that there is no other way available. Democracies are perpetuated by the acceptance of all people, including the elected leaders, that to revert to autocratic rule is harmful to everyone. Above all things, democracy is a state of mind, backed by the rule of law that endures so long as the people remain involved through the selection of their leaders and through vigilance that those leaders are held responsible to the laws of the land.
American democracy incorporates a third element to maintain our democracy, and that is the independent judiciary. Because the founding fathers of this country understood that power to rule others has a corrupting influence on human nature, they built in to our system of governing a system of courts that was independent of the legislative body so that those charged with creating the laws would be mindful of the penalties of breaking those laws. The courts of America were designed to be outside the legislative functions of government so that they could impartially decide when a law was broken, or had gone to far from the protections guaranteed in the Constitution. The courts were the tool that held the legislators in check.
In all aspects, the American democratic experiment is not a perfect way to govern, but it has been the fairest devised by humanity to date. Our tri-partite form of government has endured civil strife and foreign aggression for over 230 years without collapse not just because of the independence bred into the hearts and minds of the citizens, but also because of the acceptance of our elected leaders and appointed judges to adhere to the rule of law as it applies to all people. We have outlasted internal attacks on the system by rogue politicians because the majority of politicians and judges have ruled with reason and respect of the foundations of our government- foundations that place the well being and will of the people above that of those who sit in the chair of power. We have understood, almost inherently, that the average man will continue to thrive long after those temporarily in power have come and gone, and that the ideals of American freedom are greater than the whims of any ruler.
All that we hold dear and righteous regarding the rule of law and the limits of governmental power has come under assault with the advent and advancement of the Unitary Executive Theory.
Originally a concept for business structure, the Unitary Executive Theory holds that a single person has total authority over the course of action that will be followed. Any policy decisions are directed by that one person, as well as the right to interpret what a rule means or does not mean. Under Unitary Executive Theory, there are no checks to the power wielded by the one at the top of the ladder, no recourse for those underneath the executive, no decision that cannot be overridden or discarded or ignored. In short, the Unitary Executive is an autocrat in their domain. Any lesser policymakers, while given authority by the executive to create rules for people under them to abide by, can not force the executive towards any particular course of action. While this may be acceptable, and sometimes even necessary for the success of a business or corporation, it is antithetical to the democratic form of government. Yet it is being embraced by our president today, and upheld by acquiescence by the ruling majority party in Congress. And while the minority party and the citizens themselves deride such an abuse of power, the Unitary Executive Theory is embraced by several of the justices of the highest court of the land and a push is on to increase their numbers in an effort to solidify this usurpation of democracy.
Through an unprecedented use of so-called signing statements where the president interprets the laws of congress any way he sees fit, the rule of law is being subverted by an executive who seeks to consolidate power for himself and his potential successors. What results is an autocracy by default. It is an attempt to recreate an autocratic form of government where the head of state can choose which laws apply to him and which do not. It is ironic that the last autocrat to rule this country was also named George.
On the plus side, this attempt to destroy the ideals of democracy has not been firmly implanted just yet. But the time is coming when it may be too late to revert course without major internal upheaval. When a majority party controls both branches of legislation and is pushing the balance of the judiciary towards their side ideologically, and that ideology is to consolidate power under a Unitary Executive Theory, the American experiment is in grave danger of taking a turn back in time. The table is being set before us and an apathetical citizenry is being served a sour meal. But we can still reject this course of action.
In the coming election year, we have the power to change the face of the Congress and rebalance the state of our political class. We have the duty to revoke the power that is currently consolidated by a single party. It is up to you and me to make sure that America does not become an autocracy in democratic clothing.
This entry was posted on Sunday, January 29th, 2006 at 8:17 pm and is filed under Bush, Democracy, Government, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Ken, this is another fantastic post. I love that you equate our current George with the one the Patriots tossed aside back in our first revolution. Do you think it will require a second to overthrow this regime?
When the President engages in subversive behavior that is aimed at channeling power into the executive while simultaneously stunting the other branches, he is working off the fundamental capitalistic paradigm you suggest – unitary executive. Certainly, running a business under that theory seems to work, but government and community is not a business, now is it? Government was originally established to serve the greater good.
I couldn’t help but have a line from the Wizard of Oz bounce around my head while I read your post: Signing statements, no congressional oversight, judicial appointments of our brand of activist judge, OH MY.
Blog on brother, blog on.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Thank you, Ken, for what can only be described as another brilliant essay by one of my favorite writers. Anything I might attempt to add would simply be superfluous – you’ve summed it up, and then some!
Keep up the terrific work.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Great post as always Ken,we do have the power with our vote to get some balance in our system.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
yawn. Merkin democracy aint all it’s cracked up to be.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
The thing I wish more people would wake up to is that this isn’t merely damaging to those in the minority party and their supporters, this is damaging to EVERYONE.
It damages supporters of the Autocrat who may fall into disfavor, or who find themselves in disagreement on one issue or another (after all, how many thinking people can honestly say they agree 100% with everything another human being believes?).
Additionally, it damages the majority party because once we establish the Presidency as autocratic in power, there are one of two inevitable outcomes:
1) The President unilaterally cancels much of the underpinnings of the country, including removing term limits on his power or terminating future elections that might end his reign, or…
2) Eventually the pendulum swings, and someone of a different ideological bent gets into power. Conservatives should be scared to death by the idea that President Bush might put Unitary theory in as precedent and then turn over the reigns of power in the next election to a Democrat.
You don’t load a weapon you plan to hand to your opponent, and you don’t allow your friends to load a weapon when the only outcomes you can foresee are that friend handing the weapon to your opposition, or that friend turning that weapon on you.
Regardless, great post as always, Ken. I can’t decide when I read them whether I should continue shaking my tiny fists into the windy internet, or whether I should leave it to those of you who write better.
Liam.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:04 am
The way I see it, one more George Bush and we get to revolt. The people will have come full circle and George III will fall again.
I want to know how someone who calls himself a conservative actually could support such a theory? I thought he was all about trusting the people and not those in government
January 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
what a crock. the best sales job ever was that we have a democracy here. go back and tell that to women and blacks in 1776, we still have some kind of caste/serf system, maybe it’s better than many, but do not try and tell me the fouding fathers formed anything but a club for rich white guys.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
That may be legitimate, Billy Bob, but tell me why things not being perfect justifies not speaking up when they get worse?
I’ll be the first to admit we haven’t always been perfect, and we aren’t now. But the Unitary Executive theory is a huge step in the wrong direction, and if this country is good for nothing else, it is good for the fact that we’re free to speak out and try to fix things that are wrong.
The problem is when our elected officials won’t, such as this mornings passing of the last opportunity to filibuster Samuel Alito (who supports Unitary Executive theory) without even trying.
Liam.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Ken – Good post. Much better than the last one I commented on.
We still have 3 branches of government that all serve their purposes in the checks and balances of our democracy. – I would suggest that parties other than the Republicans start putting forth candidates that are not bilious fools like Ted, pompous rectal apperatures like Kerry, self centered loudmouths like Dean and ex-KKK like Byrd.
Dump idiots like Boxer and Feinstein and Polosi. Come up with candidates with intelligence, ethics and honesty and voters will be drawn to them.
Lefty candidates should be honest about what the left wants. Big Government, higher taxes, less state control. They should come out and say it instead of pussyfooting around and pretending they are the middle of the road (read Hillary). People see her and know she is not real. Does America really want a reprise of her lying impeached husband’s presidency? She is already proving to be dishonest and she has not even put her hat in the ring.
I would suggest the left start over by seeking new political candidates. The current crop has lost credibility. Otherwise the Republicans will keep winning elections.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Prying1, are you hinting that you might vote for a Democratic candidate? It doesn’t sound like it from your descriptions of some of the party’s prominent figures, or from your views of what the left wants for America.
The Democrat folks you mentioned are far from perfect, and they do seem to have become poster children for “Democrat failure”, due in some part to negative media portrayals.
Byrd was dumb enough to have been in the KKK, that’s a pretty sure thing… but I would have to also say that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond never really did much but hinder civil rights… and our POTUS even talked about how great a place Bob Jones University is after he went there to speak.
What does the left really want? If you read “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” by George Lakoff, it might give you some ideas. I already know what I want as a Democrat, but that book certainly gave me some good food-for-thought as to how conservatives think as well. According to Lakoff, one group wants to nurture and help others, the other wants to adhere to a “strict-father” kind of morality. One party tends to believe people are born good and things can be made better, while the other tends to think people are not born good and need to be fixed. Guess which party is which.
The left wants higher taxes? Maybe, but not necessarily. Less state control? I don’t think so. Big government? I hardly think the GOP can use that argument anymore… same with their usual old thing about them being the party of fiscal responsibility. Those last two GOP arguments are history, in my opinion.
At this point, despite some of their past presidents’ personality traits, most lefty voters want a leader who will not betray the public’s trust. Because I believe this, I have faith that the Democrats will not nominate Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2008.
Most leftists want to see people have better jobs in our country, and for those jobs to stay in America. Do Republicans believe in those ideals? Leftists know that a certain portion of our population actually does need some assistance in order to get by, and believe that the government should help those people to a certain extent. Conservatives view social programs as “immoral” because they don’t believe the people who participate in social programs have “earned” their benefits… so by Bush’s continual demands for cutting taxes, he might just think maybe the funding for social programs will run out, and those programs will die from lack of funding…
The left wants to increase our security here at home, and foster peace in the world. We don’t tend to view other countries like some parents view troublesome teenagers, like kids who need to be taught a lesson so they’ll keep in line. Most lefties tend to look at other countries as nations made up of people, rather than looking at them as a person or personality. The Project for the New American Century is the antithesis of leftist thought, and is probably not something most conservatives would care for either if they were to take a closer look at it.
Most leftists want safe food to eat and clean water to drink. Most of us want to decrease and ultimately rid our country’s dependence on foreign oil, and get alternative fuels moving.
Possibly most important of all, most leftists disagree with the president becoming a more powerful figure, and most of us believe in checks and balances in government. I don’t like seeing one party controlling the Senate, Congress and White House, whatever party that might be.
I think many of those are things most conservatives believe in too… it’s the way to approach those goals that creates the difference. Maybe it would be better for our president to take a different approach to achieving these goals than the current approach of winning through punishment, retribution, intimidation, and viewing Congress and the Senate as obstacles in getting one’s way.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
If you have any understanding of this nations beginnings, you know that the founders believed democracy to be a dangerous system. They, in contrast, carefully crafted the most successful republic in history. This is not a simple parsing of words. The differences are enormous. That you believe this to be a democracy is only evidence of flawed thinking.
The other drivel does not merit comment.
There is a very simple solution to the predicament your side faces. Win some elections. This will require some fundamental changes in your thinking. I, for one, do not believe these changes are likely. It’s not that it is impossible, just extraordinarily difficult. So many on your side are staring at the moon and believe it to be the sun.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
But… it isn’t safe to stare at the sun! 8-)>
I’m a Democrat, and I’ve been going through some fundamental changes in my thinking. One way is that I have come to realize I believe that Americans share common goals, but that each side of the political aisle frames the issues differently. How one gets the attention and eventually the support of the people depends in large part on how the issues are framed. The GOP has been very good at framing the issues and controlling the nation’s political debate. Many of the words and terms that pop up in our political discussions were generated in GOP think tanks, and sadly, our media feeds into it by using these GOP-generated words when they report on issues. This creates an association with the Republican mindset when people hear the terms being used. Democrats feed into it too when they use terms in their arguments such as “war or terror”, “faith-based initiatives”, etc.
Rick says the solution is simple, that the Democrats simply need to win some elections… but I think they need to do more than that. There are prerequisites, and those should include taking back the political debate as well as building public trust. The vocal demagogue types in the party aren’t helpful, as the ones in the GOP leadership also have not been helpful to the Republicans… the GOP just has an advantage in spin, framing issues, and controlling the debate… and that draws voters.
I have also worked at finding ways to relate to those who live in the area where I live. It’s a rural area. In college (ancient times) I used to be more of a hardcore environmentalist, but I can see what land-use regulations and the drastic curtailing of the extraction industry (timber, mostly) has done to the economy where I live, and in turn, to human lives. This is also an area where most of us (including me) know how and when to use our guns. I don’t hunt, but lots of people I know do, and they do it because it’s cheaper than buying meat at the store. I would consider myself a moderate on the environment issues and gun control, as well as on abortion and a number of other issues, and more of a lefty when it comes to social issues.
Not all of us on the left are far-left loonies. Many of us speak in frustration because, as Prying1 pointed out in his earlier comment, the current crop of left-wing candidates has lost credibility. And at the wrong time, right when the GOP is screwing up left and right! So far, I would say this is particularly true of Hillary Clinton… she has tried to be so many things to so many people that I’m not sure what her real positions are. If the Democrats run her for president, I will probably be in a state of despair.
As for Congress and the Senate, the Democrats might make some gains in 2006, but I don’t think they will be able to take back either or both unless the GOP continues to screw up (and we shouldn’t sit back and count on that happening), and unless we can take back the debate.
Instead of asking Republicans what they think of “gay marriage”, why not ask “Do you believe others should decide who you can or can’t marry?” Instead of asking what they think of “the environmental movement”, ask them if they believe our citizens need clean air and clean water. Instead of asking them about “national security”, ask them if they believe we need to spend more money on making our ports and borders safer. There are lots of ways to control the debate, but none of the Democrat leaders seem to be particularly good at it.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Well stated Snave. Kudos to you. You get it completely.
This nation is utterly dependant on the robust debate between two healthy political parties. I do not desire the demise of your side, for that would mean the demise of us all. The Democratic party was once a home for Pittsburgh and Birmingham steelworkers and New York firefighters. It is now the proud home of George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Watters, Michael Moore, Al Franken and Cher. I urge you to fix that which is so fundamentally broken on your side. If your side had more folks the likes of you, it would control far more than it presently does. If you grow weary of the fight over there, you will be welcome on my side. You are thoughtful and serious. You understand what is required to win.
Pax tecum
February 1st, 2006 at 4:19 am
Folks,
Not to monopolize Ken’s blog, but…
The biggest problem facing our nation is the idea of “My party” and “Your party”.
Honestly, we’d be far better off if everyone registered independent and considered themselves as such, and then viewed the candidates in terms of personal merits weighed against what the nation needed at that moment.
This whole Superbowl aspect of our national parties, rooting for our candidate because they’re from “our team” is what’s got us in the mess we’re currently in.
For myself, I believe in a mixture of conservative and progressive ideals. I think it’s wonderful that proressives have helped make the strides in civil rights that they have, doing away with slavery, working against racism and sexism, etc. I also think that true conservative policies with regard to spending (unlike what we’re getting out of conservative-in-name-only Bush) are vital to the health of our country. The two philosophies are opposite faces of the same coin, the ego and the id, the rational and the emotional, the practical and the ideolistic. We need both.
And most of all, I believe a separation of powers, to keep the intended checks and balances intact, is vital.
In 2006, I will be voting for a Democrat for the House and the Senate unless the Democratic candidate is absolutely odious, not because I particularly agree with the Democratic party over the Republican, but because single party rule is killing this nation.
Which brings us back to Ken’s post. We can’t afford a Supreme Court that believes in the Unitary Executive. The Supreme Court is a vital part of the system of checks and balances, and if we populate it with people who will all roll over and place nice when the President barks “Sit! Stay!”, we increase the power of the President, and thus, the corruption.
Stop thinking of it as “my party” and “their party”. Start thinking of it as “OUR country”. We’ll all be a hell of a lot better off.
Liam.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:23 am
Oh, and Rick, the full description of our nation is a Democratically Elected Representative Republic.
So yes, you are techincally correct that we are a Republic, but there are Democratic aspects to the whole thing.
I think people can be forgiven for misusing the term Democracy. After all, it’s a buzz word that both sides use time and again. Spreading Democracy. Fighting for Democracy.
Like so many other talking points, repeated often enough, people start to believe it, whether it’s true or not.
For me, when someone talks about “our Democracy”, I recognize that they’re talking about our system of government and try not to pick nits. We’re a lot more Democratic than most other nations on earth.
Liam.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:31 am
This is a very well written piece. Unfortunately, it suffers from faulty logic and a grave misunderstanding of reality.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:52 am
If that’s true, Mr. Shott, can you give some examples?
I can’t speak for Ken, but for myself, I’d be THRILLED if someone could show me where my understanding of the world is faulty, and how things are not as dire as they appear to me.
Please, honestly, if you have something to say, say it. Don’t just do the “you’re wrong” drive by with no proof. It makes you look like you have nothing.
Liam.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:38 am
Rick, thanks. I try, anyway!
February 1st, 2006 at 6:34 am
(responses)
Windspike- Thanks. If things continue on in the manner they are going, it may well require some kind of revolution- preferable more peaceful than the first, and hopefully through the electoral process. I agree wholeheartedly that government is not a business and should not be run as one. That is not to say that fudiciary responsibility is not necessary for it certainly is. Only that government is about the rule of law and maintaining the freedom of the individual in balance with the needs of society. Thanks for the thoughts.
Bob- I appreciate the support. It’s really too bad that things like this even need to be addressed, but so many people have their heads in the sand, as some of the comments show.
Withinreason- Yes we have the power, but we aren’t wielding it. Too many people are opting out. Why? I can only surmise the reasons, and have in previous essays. The solution lies in getting people back in the system of voting and making themselves heard. Thanks for dropping by.
Anon- Agreed- especially when people would rather be anonymous and leave tepid comments than actually try to make a change.
Liam (first comment)- Sadly, too many people have come to view politics as a team sport where one side must win at all costs. They fail to see that when some fail, we all fail. Supporters of a unitary executive seem to think that their party will always retain power, and when the tables shift, they will be the first to cry “unfair.” And to their surprise, I’ll still be yelling “unfair” with them if that were to be the case. Don’t stop your writing though just because you don’t think it’s “up to par.” You bring a great voice into the conversation, and sometimes, quantity is just as, if not more, important.
rev- we are no longer living in 1776, so regardless of the original make-up of the government and its leaders, we still have the duty to make their words have meaning. I assume you do not believe that our government should be a rich white mans club any more than I do, so the solution is to not let it to revert to one after the progress that has been made.
liam (second comment)Good rebuttal to what seemed to be a defeatist attitude from the rev. Even when a minority party (and I remind people that this is not a true minority, since the country is fairly evenly split politically between the major parties and much of the governmental make-up is due to gerrymandered districting) does not have the votes to succeed, they still have the duty to reject what may be a hostile take-over.
prying1- Thanks. Glad you liked this one better. The democrats don’t have a lock on “bilious fools and self-centered loudmouths.” Remember Tom DeLay or Bill Frist? Honesty? You mean like Duke Cunningham and Jerry Lewis? (since you referenced California democrats.)
Republican politicians have not exactly been paramours of honesty. This government has grown larger and spent more under Bush and his republicans than we’ve seen in some time. I would submit that America is already being subjected to a less than honest, divisive presidency, and recent public opinion bears that out. I’m no fan of Hillary either, but not because of her centrist seeming antics. In fact, centrism is what compromise is about. In her case though, it seems to be more a case of political expediency than true intentions. You are right- we do need new candidates in politics, but not from the democrats or the republicans. We need politicians who are Americans first and foremost.
Snave (first comment)- Thanks for helping to point out that neither party is filled with luminaries of honesty or human caring. Our leadership lacks true leader qualities and instead are just shills of their political donors.
Your identification of what the left wants, and how it is much the same as what the right wants just reinforces many of the things I’ve been saying all alon gon this blog. The real differences aren’t what we want, but how we achieve them. Certainly, ignoring and demonizing each other is not the answer.
Rick (first comment)- If, as you assert, the founders were so against a democracy, why is this republic made up of democracies working together for a common goal (at least in theory?) Certainly a democracy affords the average person a chance to be heard in government, as ours does. That our states act in concert as a federated republic does not negate the democratic nature of our system.
As for the rest of this post being “drivel” I guess you are too enamored with an “us vs. them” mentality to view American politics and government as a cooperative effort. That is a shame, but you are not alone. Sadly, you are not alone.
And though you seem to assume that I have a “side” you could not be more wrong. I am not a registered democrat, but a non-partisan voter. I choose those who value America above political party dogma. The simple fact that the ruling party does not adhere to basic American values anymore, let alone the roots of their own party makes them the primary subject of my ire. I am not so enamored with the democrats either though, as the have abandoned their role as a minority party by failing to present any real alternative to the majority.
Yes, we do need better candidates to choose from. If progressive thinkers are staring at the moon, it is only because conservatives have fenced off the sun and only those who can afford to buy a ticket are allowed to get a tan.
snave (second comment)- This comment is full of wisdom for democrats as well as republicans. Both sides have clouded the issues by using buzz words and the media has helped perpetuate the confusion. Perhaps that is why so many have bailed out and stopped paying attention. Thanks for being so clear is stating the problem as well as providing a common sense solution to cut through the clutter.
rick (second comment)- I am glad to see that you don’t seem to be a complete ideologue, but someone who would like to see rationality return to politics. Maybe if you weren’t so quick to dismiss the opinions of opposing points of view as “drivel” you could find that most people really do share common concerns and would rather work together to find solutions thatn simply demonize each other. welcome to the real world where winning doesn’t mean destroying the other side. winning means we all go home with something we can be proud of, or at least not ashamed to be associated with.
liam (third & fourth comments)- No worries- I am glad to have sparked such debate among readers. Keep on talking ’til your heart’s content.
Obviously, I agree that independent (or non-partisan) politics are much more effective that the partisan squabble we have today. I think most people have a balanced sense of political and social thought, and just the vocal minorities of both parties, as emphasized in the talk based media, are the ones causing the most distress to the system.
And thanks for getting things back to the point of this post- checks and balances. That was a primary force built in to the constitution to prevent the very situation we have today. I don’t think the founders would be very happy with our politics today, especially when one party has run off with all the branches and is doing away with the restraints they built.
Also, thanks for identifying that American “democracy” refers to our governmental processes in a more generic term. I didn’t think I’d have to parse terminology here, but I guess I was wrong.
James- Pray tell, what is your truth? Although I appreciate your compliment, I can’t say that your comment was very illuminating or offered much to this discussion. If I am out of touch, feel free to tell me how.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Time spent researching why the founders were so adamantly opposed to the formation of a democracy is not time wasted. You will be enriched by their thought processes. Also, understanding exactly what we have here is important. That the term democracy is so commonly misused, is hardly nit picking. Enough on the matter.
To ignore the fact that there are two sides in opposition in this country is to deny reality. These two sides are the counterbalance that move things forward. It is the argument that works. One side cannot be profoundly stronger than the other. They must be of equal strength and influence. From time to time one side must take stock of itself and repair that which is broken. Otherwise, we all slide into the abyss.
I leave you with this final thought, Steelers 31 – Seahawks 10.
Pax vobiscum.
February 1st, 2006 at 5:35 pm
The above comment is mine. I did not intend for it to be anonymous.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Rick,
The interchange between us is the problem of the Democratic party in microcosm (although neither of us may be Democrats):
We’re agreeing on the vitally important part, the part that actually has importance in today’s society, but getting caught up in debating the minutia.
We can agree to disagree on how important the misuse of the term Democracy is (and I agree, understanding the true nature of our government and the thinking that went into forming it is interesting, informative and important, but in more of a theoretical than immediately practical way), but in my opinion, the crucial bit of the whole thing is the checks and balances.
As long as we continue to have this completely lopsided representation in this country (completely out of whack with the composition OF our country), we’ve lost checks and balances which are vital to keeping our governmental corruption to the level of minor bribery rather than the level of coup d’etat.
Liam.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Liam,
I want to fully understand what you think is “lopsided”, but I do not. I apologize for being dense here. I do not like it when I miss someone’s point.
Rick
February 1st, 2006 at 9:07 pm
What I believe is lopsided in this country is that right now (and the REASONS for this are open to debate, but are beside the point for the moment) we have all of the power in our Federal government concentrated in a small set of hands, and in one side of the ideological aisle, even though the country is much more evenly split.
Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Executive branch, and with the confirmation of Judge Alito, the Judiciary has taken a strong step in that direction as well. Judges should be moderate and as close as humanly possible to ideologically neutral.
Sandra Day O’Connor was a great example, nominated by a Republican, but not overly liberal or conservative.
The bench was already overwhelmingly Republican based on nominating President (7 to 2), but generally centrist because in most cases, the President at the time had to get the approval of a Congress in the hands of the opposing party.
We now have Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas on the right wing fringe on the court with the rest (for the most part) in the middle. And this represents the most balanced branch of our government.
I don’t love the Democrats. I don’t love the Republicans. But we need both to keep each other in check, not one party in complete power with the other side shaking its tiny fists in protestations of rage but refusing to take even the few little steps their minority position leaves them.
By the way, I don’t particularly have an axe to grind with regard to the abortion issue, it’s the Unitary Executive theory and the laughably mis-named “original intent” jurists that scare me. As with so many other things, the party in power right now uses Orwellian double-speak to argue in favor of their own Judicial activists by claiming that anyone who judges in any way CONTRARY to those activists are themselves the activists.
Liam.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
(responses)
Rick- Exactly- they SHOULD be of equal strength and influence, and they are not at the present, even though the general public IS. I submit that the abyss is just in front of us, and if the present course does not change, we may well begin to slide.
BTW- My wife is from PA and I am from WA so I’m gonna have to go with the Hawks this time.
Liam & Rick – Feel free to continue this debate here in the comments, as I feel you are both doing a great job of exploring the issue, and maintaining a civil tone. I stand by what I have written in this post though, and don’t feel that I need to respond to every one of your continuing comments, though I follow with interest.
All other comments from readers will be replied to as usual though, so keep ’em coming folks.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:28 am
So, we come to what separates us. I see Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and to a lesser extent Kennedy as likely to operate outside the Constitution. I am, what you would describe, as an original intentor. Our Constitution is the greatest document ever penned. It is what separates us from the barbarians. All other Constitutions (save those modeled after ours) are governments articulating the rights of it’s citizens. Ours assumes that rights are endowed from the creator and explains to it’s government all that it is permitted to do. We cannot stray from this. It is not living and breathing. Not to bring up the subject of abortion, but when you read the majority opinion to Roe v. Wade delivered by justice Blackmun, one cannot help but conclude that it is laughable. I beg you to read it. He references British common law and how abortion is regarded historically. I care only about what our Constitution says about the matter. This is the principle of “original intent”.
I was “pestered” (challenged) a number of years ago, by a now friend, to make myself comprehend why we are not a democracy. “Yea, yea, yea,” I would say. Well this simple investigation lead me to the fascinating relationships and arguments among Jefferson and Adams and Madison and Hamilton et al. This has caused me to cling to the Constitution and it’s “original intent”. I highly recommend this journey if, in fact, you have not already taken it.
A deo et Rege.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Rick,
You are in fact NOT what I referred to as “original intent”, I was referring to the people who use “original intent” in ways that are as odious as “unitary executive”. People like Antonin Scalia, who famously said “You want a right? Pass a law.”, which as you so correctly pointed out, is entirely antithetical to the original intent of the Constitution.
Again, you and I agree, I think, that the original intent of the Constitution was to enumerate the powers that DID belong to the Federal government, expressly reserving those it did NOT grant there for the States or for the citizens. THAT is the true original intent.
But I hear a lot of people talk about “original intent” in the same breath as “returning this country to its Christian roots” (the founders of this country, by and large, were deists, but not Christians).
Reading through the Federalist papers, there was argument back and forth over whether to include a “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution. The argument against said that “If we include such a thing, someone down the line will construe that as meaning that the things we DIDN’T include are NOT rights”.
To try to combat this, they included the Ninth amendment to explicitly say that “just because it’s not listed here doesn’t mean it’s not a right”, and yet we still have people like Scalia making quotes like the one he did and hailed as “original intent” jurists.
Which, ultimately, is why I put quotes around “original intent”, because as commonly used by the right wing fringe currently in power in the Republican party, it is more Orwellian double speak. As listed by them, it is absolutely NOT the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
I have absolutely no problem with true original intent. I have a HUGE problem with attempting to redefine “original intent” and then using the label to try to make anyone who disagrees with you seem anti-American.
(And by “you” I don’t mean Rick, I mean those about whom I am writing).
Liam.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Liam
The federalist papers should be required reading. I rarely encounter anyone who is remotely familiar with their content. At the time, I’m sure you are aware, there was little public support for a constitution. The federalists papers were a series of newspaper articles designed to whip up support. Antifederalists opposed because they felt a constitution would encourage the federal government to seize more and more power, which sadly, it has done. The Bill of Rights was a compromise that brought Jefferson, Madison and their side on board. (Sides even then. The balance is critical.) Amazing document. When an argument is brought before the high court, it is nearly always with reference to the amendments and not the main body of the document. We are all fortunate that the antifederalists held out.
I read Scalia’s words quite differently. I heard, in the same sentence that you object to, him saying “The high court does not make law nor grant rights. We only interpret the Constitution.” My reaction was, “Thank God, its about time.”
We all, pathetically, take for granted the simple freedom that allow us to have this conversation. This birthright is tragically under appreciated. Absit invidia.
You positions are well thought through.
Cedo maiori.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:59 am
Rick,
It is funny how two different intelligent people can hear the same thing and come to vastly different conclusions about what it says.
For me, I believe the ninth amendment (and indeed much of the document) is clear in saying that rights are not LIMITED to what’s in the Constitution, but rather that FEDERAL (and to a lesser extent State) rights are limited by the Constitution, and that many rights not expressly mentioned in the document are nevertheless rights.
Therefore, to me, a more proper reading of the original intent would be “You want to restrict a right? Amend the Constitution.” To me, Scalia’s comment as made sounds incredibly like he’s asserting that rights not in the Constitution aren’t rights, and if we the Citizens want a right that isn’t expressly there, we should lobby our government to pass laws granting it.
That doesn’t mesh with my understanding of the core intent of the Constitution, as I said.
Anyway, though, we continue to agree on the basic point, which is that balance is needed.
Interestingly, I learned yesterday that even Grover Norquist (one of the five or six central figures of the “neo conservative” movement) agrees with us. He was quoted in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle as follows:
“For 40 years we always assumed the left would take care of our civil liberties,” he said. “If there were problems, the Democrats were the ones who would push back. But now with a Republican Congress and a Republican in the White House, the ACLU can’t get their calls returned.”
The great part is, both sides have an important role to play, Conservative principles keeping us grounded and Liberal principles making us strive to change things for the better. Yin and Yang, opposites, but absolutely vital to each other.
Liam.
P.S. Rick, Ken, do you mind if I post the debate thus far on my own blog? I think between us we’ve made a lot of good points, and I think it’s illustrative that we can disagree on some points and still wholeheartedly agree that the plane doesn’t fly very well if its left and right wing aren’t relatively evenly matched.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 am
(responses)
Rick & Liam- What a fantastic conversation on this side of the comment section. I commend you both for the continued civility while debating these concepts. And it is obvious that we do agree on the need for a sense of balance above all things. In fact, that was precisely the undercurrent of the main post topic; that when one party or person seeks to usurp the prerogeratives of the whole (or other parts)based upon their own wants or aspirations, the system of democracy and/or federal republicanism becomes something altogether different than it was intended. Whether this administration has done just that is obviously a point we differ on, but in principal, we agree that when that DOES happen, it is bad for everyone all the way around.
I still submit that the imbalance in our political system is real and not a good thing for the future of our country. The partisan division seeks not to solve real problems, but to maintain division for the sake of holding on to power. The aims of those who grab and hold power are specious and do not, in my opinion, have this country’s best interests at heart.
The federalist papers are invaluable in understanding the struggle to pass our Constitution and do make for great reading. It has been many years since I last read them. It is time to do so again. But though they proved instrumental to the eventual passing of the Constitution into the law of the land, they are not, in themselves, the law by which we are bound. They illuminate the original thoughts of some of the country’s founders, but no document exists untouched or unchanged for centuries as the world evolves, and the constitution is no different.
Original intent of the initial seven articles themselves have undergone change through the years to account for a changing and growing population and to accomodate better representation of the people by the legislative branch. Similarly, the processes by which representatives of the legislative and executive branch are selected have been altered from the original intent too.
And each additional amendment following the original Bill of Rights shows that the constitution is indeed mutable and not a static document. This is the “living” element of our constitution and it is undeniable.
So with respect to this original post and the argument I posed, what I believe we are experiencing is another example of the changing face of the constitution, or at least an attempt to do so. An expansion of executive powers beyond which the original intent was, and an expansion in direct conflict with the establishment of the separation of powers and the roles of each branch of government. I see the unitary executive theory being applied in such a way as to consolidate the powers of the other branches into that of the executive, or at the very least, to make their powers of lesser value and to usurp their equal but separate roles as the constitution intended. I see an intentional attempt to place members into the judicial branch that agree with this interpretation despite the implications that it can lead to an all-powerful executive, and I see a legislative majority doing very little to retain their role as a check to that kind of power. And once that power is ensconced in the federal executive, I fear it is but a short trip to see the rights of the states, theoretically sovereign in their own territories in all things not enumerated in the Constitution as being under the domain of the federal government, to lose their rights to legislate as their citizens see fit. (so long, of course, that they remain within the boundaries agreed to in the constitution that protect the individual from the excesses of government in general.)
I may be wrong, and I hope in the end I am, because to me, such an effort is the undoing of the democratic principals this country was founded on, and a bastardization of the republic that we are enjoined in.
And Liam- I have no problem with you reprinting these comments on your blog.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Liam:
you should visit my site if you think i do not think people should speak up. my point of comment was that changing the chairs, moving them around as we have done over and over, will not work. you are not focused on the true kingmakers, the folks up on k street. without a revolution, which is a deadly, wasteful process, the only way to affect change is through massive boycotts, k streets clients care about their bottom line. that was my point, and it would be wise to click on people’s links (and read) before you make such negative assumptions.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Liam
You may certainly post this conversation.
We are not in much disagreement here. I am not articulating my position very well. The Constitution is WE speaking to our government. The ninth amendment is crystal clear. We are saying that “our rights are not restricted to only what we have enumerated here. Because we have forgotten to include a right in this document does not mean it is not a right.” Then, with the tenth amendment, we issue a stern warning. “You (government) only have the powers enumerated herein. All other powers revert to the states and citizens.” We (the framers) then make this document extraordinarily difficult to amend. It was never intended to reflect the changes in society or the fickleness of it’s citizenry. It does not need “tinkering” any more than do the 10 commandments. It is mirable visu in it’s original state.
I therefore view Blackmun’s 1973 opinion as a corruption. This is not a discussion about abortion. I only mention the matter to illustrate how far that “side” of the high court strayed. British common law? Unbelievable to me.
So, not to flog a dead horse then, I hear Scalia agreeing with us. One can argue with his choice of words, but he clearly indicates by his opinions that the court does not “make law”. The Supreme Court is not a participant. It is a referee. The game pauses. The high court looks at the instant replay (Constitution), then makes a ruling. When a matter comes before “my” (yours too) justices, I want them to be thinking, “how does this square with the Constitution?” I do not want them to be thinking “what will be fair?” I view the left side of the judiciary in general, as driven by the incredibly subjective doctrine of “fairness”. So, though it probably seems incredible to you, I view the right side of the high court as defenders of “originalness.”
I am open to the possibility that I might be incorrect in my thinking, but I have not blindly stumbled to my positions. Nosce te ipsum.
As for the “imbalance”, I would suggest that a slight majority of the citizenry of this nation believes that the “crazies” on the left outnumber the “crazies” on the right. Seems simplistic, but I believe it to be true. The side which can most successfully jettison it’s “crazies” will have political advantage. It is pure perception.
Res ipsa loquitur.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
I agree with your last paragraph, Rick. I think that the perception that the left has more crazies is predominant. I also think the right-wing thinkers have successfully fostered this through the controlling of the nation’s political discourse by the GOP (see my earlier two comments in this thread).
I believe that in effect, the GOP has spent more of its time and money on advertising strategies than the left has. This has taken a couple of decades or more to come to fruition, but I think it is a strategy that has paid off for Republican candidates in a handsome way.
The left has things like “ecoterrorists” or “tree-huggers”, “animal rights activists”, and the “queer agenda”… things that have been framed nicely in GOP terms. The left hasn’t been successful in framing or reframing issues, but I would say lots of people in the above-mentioned “groups” have been successfully used by the GOP as poster-children for the Democratic party. In this manner, I think the left has used guys like Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, and religious fundamentalists as poster-children for the right. The more this is done, the more the voters will view a party as representing a political extreme, rather than as having the capacity for moderation. If both parties can kick out their own extremist boogeymen, things could get better in America… but that isn’t what America is about; we are about people being able to openly state their opinions. So what can be done?
I believe the Democrats of today who are being characterized as “far left” used to be characterized as being in the moderate-left range, and that most of us are Dems still are moderate-left. The Republican party of today contains elements that would have been off the right end of the spectrum but which are now considered “acceptable” as part of the spectrun of right-wing politics. I speak here mainly of religious fundamentalists. Moderate Republicans have been characterized by their own party as being left of center or as wishy-washy. It seems to me that all of this shifting of the public perception of the political spectrum’s labels to the left by a notch or two started happening around the time talk radio became popular…. I also think FOX News would have been laughed off the air in 1975 or 1980, but after decades of hearing about the bad “liberal media” from the right, Americans were ripe for something like FOX to take off. Am I saying that I think FOX News is an end result of a long propaganda campaign? Yeah.
This is my theory about how it has all shaken out:
Right wing fringe groups have now become acceptable, and are in the right hand edge of the spectrum.
Far-right conservatives of 20 years ago are now perceived as mainstream conservatives. Moderate Republicans are not viewed as being right-wing enough, and some are being characterized as left-of-center.
Moderate Democrats are now classified as “liberals” or “far-left”.
Democrats who are actually far-left are now called “socialists”. This might explain why people like Hillary Clinton try so hard to avoid being pegged as far-left, because nowadays that equates to her being a “socialist” or worse. Because she has already been pegged from past antics, she now desperately kow-tows to the Republicans in an attempt to at least appear moderate-left (I think that is actually where she is on lots of issues, although she shot herself in the foot with the healthcare reform idea when her husband was president… because of that she will forever be a “socialist” to most Americans now, regardless of whether or not that plan had merit.)
While such a long-running right wing strategy could possibly have caused the American public to have a greater negative perception of the left, I think it could also allowed more “fringe group” types to influence the GOP… i.e. the Christian fundamentalists seem to have undue influence on the direction the Republican party is taking.
The right-wing has managed to shift public perceptions on the political spectrum in a leftward direction as to what degree of political belief gets what label, and that has caused the Democrats to have nowhere to go on their end… as their party is continually reviled, their moderates become viewed as people who represent evil or bad things. Democrats are running into a wall; they are being penned in.
However, on their end, the GOP has been lax about who they let in. They have the lefties penned in with nowhere to go, but they are letting kooks cross their borders and enter the party. If the Dems don’t realize this and don’t make some gains before the GOP tightens things up at the right-hand end, I shudder to think of what things might look like here in America 20 years further down the road.
I think the right wing actually has more “crazies” at this point, but the public has been led to perceive the opposite. I could have said that at the beginning and saved you all the time it took to read the whole comment. That’s the problem with writing as one thinks… but I suppose it works better than writing without thinking. And your comments have all been very thoughtful!
February 3rd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Snave & Rick,
Good comments. My daughter’s birthday is today, so I’ll have to hold off on a longer reply until later, but something Snave said struck a nerve:
Absolutely the “center” has shifted far to the right in perception. It’s odd, really.
First, Bill Clinton is vilified as typical of the “liberal left”, but is in fact quite a bit to the RIGHT of Richard Nixon, who was considered quite conservative in his day.
Second, the Republicans have absolutely been more successful in speaking with a unified voice than the Democrats have. They’ve managed to demonize the term “liberal” to the point that poll after poll has shown (and you’ll just have to trust me until later, when I can look up the sources. Remind me if I forget) that if you ask people if they are liberal, the majority shuns the label. But if you ask people about ISSUES, on most issues, the majority actually are more liberal than conservative.
Liam.
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Liam, you provided the words my frazzled brain couldn’t come up with: the “center” has shifted far to the right in perception”. Thanks!
February 4th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Liam
A very happy birthday to your precious daughter. It is enormous fortune to be surrounded by family that we love.
You are spot on with your brief analysis. The center has shifted to the right. Liberals are too timid to admit their beliefs, while conservatives wear their label proudly. As to why, it is anyone’s guess. But it is foolhardy to deny that it has happened.
Snave
Thank you for the kind words. Let me offer this to you for consideration. Harry Belafonte (identified with the left and Democratic party), travels to Venezuela and spews anti American venom. The left remains utterly silent. The right is cheering, only you cannot hear them. Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Chavez and the right rebukes him to the point where he is forced to apologize. When I say the side which can most successfully jettison it’s “crazies”, it is to this kind of thing I refer. This distancing. Democrats have to find a way to throw their Michael Moores overboard. Folks in Iowa and Nebraska and Mississippi will not want to be identified with his likes.
Perhaps the ground was plowed for Fox News. But, perhaps it is simply a better reflection of American culture and views.
Ken
I have read Craig Harmon’s eloquent counters on the other side. I should have put for that sort of effort rather than characterizing your effort as drivel. Please accept my apology. I agree with Mr. Harmon’s analysis. I have to confess that I will often drop by sites and say something provocative. It is like tossing a stick amongst chimps. They are never able to refuse the bait. I, however, found no chimps here.
February 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
OK, time to spend a bit more time on the various responses…
First, I want to agree with the comments of mutual admiration which have been going on here. We don’t all agree, but I respect that we’ve each come to our conclusions through thought and analysis, and we have done a much better-than-average job of keeping the discussion polite and not resulting in personal attacks.
I agree about Roe v. Wade, by the way. Regardless of my feelings on the abortion issue, from constitutional grounds, I think Roe is shaky law at best. I’m also not convinced that abortion is an issue in the Federal domain, I think a very good argument can be made for it being a States domain issue.
Understand, I do not have a problem with reading into the Constitution to find implied rights. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to find that the framers intended a certain level of right to privacy, even though it was not specifically spelled out, and I don’t think that it’s judicial activism, nor judicial legislating, to find laws unconstitutional based on their infringing on rights that constitutional scholars find strong implication for in the text.
That’s one of the objections I have to the implication of the popular use of the term “original intent” jurists, the implication that it is only within the purview of judges and justices to rule on constitutionality of things which are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Just to pick one hot-button example, the framers didn’t know anything about atomic energy, so they didn’t limit the extent to which the second Amendment applied. And yet surely few people would seriously argue that that Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to own and carry a nuclear bomb. And once you make that distinction, you’ve already lost the absolutist argument regarding guns. It’s like the old joke, in which a man asks a woman if she’d sleep with him for ten million dollars, and she says “of course”, so he says “how about for ten dollars” and she says “No, what kind of woman do you think I am?” and he replies “We’ve already settled that, now we’re just haggling over the price.”
The issue, and the point of contention, is where the line is drawn, and we may all have different opinions of where that line is drawn, but it does not make it judicial activism when one judge has a differing opinion than you do over where the limit is on the second Amendment.
Justices can not make laws, they can only strike them down. So by definition, they cannot legislate from the bench. There is nothing preventing Congress from passing a reworded version of the same law which was previously struck down, it just means that if it’s too similar, it will probably be struck down again. A perfect example from the State of the Union speech is the President’s call for the line-item veto. It was passed once, for President Clinton. It was then challenged and ruled unconstitutional on the basis of altering the fundamental balance of powers between the branches. Bush is nevertheless still free to call for it, and this Congress is free to enact it if they so choose, and until or unless someone mounts a legal challenge to it, the law will stand.
So, while we may have differing opinions on what the Constitution says (or would intend) about a given situation, it is absolutely vital that Justices and the courts have the right to interpret both the laws passed by the Congress and the execution of those laws by the Executive branch. Not so that they have legislative authority, but so that they act as a check on what might otherwise be a completely unintended level of power in a small number of hands, which again brings us back to the original piece and concerns over Unitary Executive.
This is getting long, so let me post this one and move on to the next topic in a new comment.
Liam.
February 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
OK, now, on to which party has more crazies and has done a better job of getting rid of theirs. I think there are several problems with the argument that the Right wing does a better job of speaking out against their fringe members.
First, the comparison between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore is specious, because of the difference in what they represent. Michael Moore is an entertainer. A good analogy for him on the other side would be Ted Nugent, who says some pretty inflammatory things on the extremes of the ideology of the right, but no one chastises him.
A good analogy for Pat Robertson would be the church in California which was recently served with notice that it was being investigated for violating the rules with regard to the last election. A sermon by one of the church elders which had fairly negative things to say about both candidates, and which didn’t explicitly endorse either (merely suggested that parishioners decide for themselves which way Jesus would vote and vote that way) is called unreasonably political and possibly worthy of loss of tax-exempt status, but Pat Robertson (and quite a few other religious groups that benefit from the tax-exempt status of churches) make much more explicit endorsements of Republican candidates, and they aren’t investigated. There are a number of mega churches that explicitly supported Bush. There was one whose leader came right out and told his congregation that any of them that voted for Kerry did not belong in his church. In defense of your argument, that church leader was later ousted from his church by the congregation, but in defense of mine, it was only by the congregation, not because of any outside influence speaking out or chastising them.
Another difference between Moore/Belafonte and Robertson is who they speak out against. Moore and Belafonte both speak out against the President. Robertson makes calls for blatantly illegal assassinations, says that the Hurricane in New Orleans was divine retribution and tells the world that God will no longer protect a town in Pennsylvania because they refused to allow Intelligent Design to be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.
How about the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”? Have they been chastised or criticized by anyone in the Republican party for a series of attack ads on Kerry which have more or less proven to be false (or at least, present a story from a batch of people who cannot substantiate having been present that is in direct contradiction to the stories from people who were there)? How about the many Fox News (and other big media) commentators who spent large hours hammering home the issue that Al Gore was a liar, when in fact just about every one of the supposed “lies” is either taken wildly out of context, or turns out to be true? How about the many charges brought by Republicans against Bill Clinton, which turned out to have had so little merit that they had to keep slinging mud against the wall and expanding the investigation well beyond its original scope before they found anything that had any merit?
The difference isn’t that the Right wing is better at self-censuring their extremists, it’s that the Right wing is better at marching in lock step, following a set of party talking points and punishing (as one) anyone from the party who steps away from the party line. (Have you heard the term “RINO”? It means “Republican in Name Only”, and it’s commonly leveled at any Republican who doesn’t toe the party line). Some elements of the party line are fringe, extremist, and downright false. But on the Left, there is no serious organized attempt to say “this is what you will say, this is what you will think, this is Party reality”, so charges against Bush don’t get widely and consistently repeated until they become “common knowledge”. Therefore, I would say that in fact it is the Democratic party whose members are actually MORE willing to decry questionable statements by their fringe members, so those fringe arguments (even some which appear to be true) don’t get the kind of toehold in the public consciousness that the other side’s talking points get.
I think it is this consistent and concerted message that is responsible for the rightward shift in perception we’ve already discussed. It is not that people’s attitudes are any different than they’ve always been, it’s that there’s so much more rote repetition of the Republican talking points (even to the level of “liberal” being a term of derision) than there has of the Democratic.
And if you don’t believe that, watch the various news programs on any given Sunday (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, etc) and listen to the conservative guests and then listen to the right wing Commentator (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc). Count how many times Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest use exactly the same phrase. Sure, you’d expect some of that, but even in the comments presented as though they were off-the-cuff remarks. A few weeks ago, the big issue was the problematic roll-out of the new Medicare drug benefit plan, and a very large number of them referred to “your Aunt Sadie” (it wasn’t Sadie, I forget the name they used. But they all used the same name).
Republicans have become very good at framing any argument and making a coordinated effort to all stick to the same framing, while Democrats still (by and large) react individually. Less coordinated message, less rote memorization in the minds of the populous, less “common knowledge” belief that the Democratic message has any merit.
This is getting long, but let me leave you with one last example: the Republican talking point that Democrats don’t have any ideas. When you ask people why they are hesitant to support a Democratic candidate, even knowing that they disapprove of the Republican one, and one of the first answers you get is “Democrats don’t have any ideas”. It comes out parrot like, as if this were somehow obvious to everyone. And yet…
Last week, George Bush endorsed a plan (which he attributed to the Russians) to provide nuclear fuel to Iran for a civilian power generation nuclear plant. The point of this plan is that someone provides the fuel to Iran and then collects the “garbage” (spent fuel rods) in order to make sure none of it was processed into fissionable, weapons grade material.
Note that Bush doesn’t even claim the idea, he says he is endorsing an idea someone else came up with.
Now go back to August of 2004. The campaigns are in full swing, and John Kerry announces a plan to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is met with wide spread derision in the right wing media and by pretty much anyone on that side of the aisle who comments on it. The details of that plan? Pretty much EXACTLY the “Russian” plan President Bush just endorsed. (For more information, read my blog post here).
So the “common knowledge” is that Kerry’s plan was stupid and ill conceived. The “common knowledge” (such as it is) is that Bush is actually DOING something to support a plan to try to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And almost no one is reporting that it’s the same plan, while “common knowledge” still says Democrats have no ideas.
Liam.
P.S. Snave, I honestly didn’t intend to copy your argument. I hadn’t read through yours fully when I wrote this, so similarities between yours and mine were arrived at independently.
February 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
The deleted comment is mine. For some reason, Blogger chose to put my second comment up there twice, so I deleted the second (duplicate) posting.
Liam
February 5th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Honestly, I fear it’s already too late to prevent the unitary Executive.
And I also believe that the unitary Executive, combined with things like the coming default of the Federal Government, spells the end of the United States of America.
Let us consider the kind of Government El Shrubbo intends to impose upon all of the country. I do not believe for a second that the Northeast, or the West Coast, will tolerate it. So then the Federal Government will have to enforce its authority on these regions, and it will try to do so using soldiers drawn largely from the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged-the very people the Federal Government is implacably hostile to. This is a recipe for collapse of the Federal authority, and of course that collapse will be greatly hastened the day the Chinese pass on the bond auction.
What will be left? Perhaps a federation of Southern States, with maybe Ohio and Indiana thrown in. The “sagebrush” States will make a grab for the autonomy that they have always cherished, and the West Coast and Northeast will undoubtedly go their own way as well.
This will be the final result of the combination of El Shrubbo’s power grab and El Shrubbo’s bankrupting of the Federal Government. Shrubberals, enjoy the ride you set in motion.
February 5th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Roger… not a particularly Jolly observation, but one not without merit. Liam and Rick, again thanks for thought-provoking comments!
I would like to see the left chastise Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan for mugging with Hugo Chavez or with leaders who publicly state they are against our country. I wouldn’t even mind seeing Howard Dean get chastised from time to time when he makes comments that might be true but which are not expressed in terms anything but blunt.
When right-wing leaders chastise folks like RevPat, I agree it does at least give them the appearance of trying to keep their problem-children under control. It might also give them the appearance of not having such a big tent as they might like people to think.
Then again, hinting that they don’t have as much tolerance for the “fringe” types is a politically-expedient thing for the GOP to do; as I mentioned in one of my earlier comments (and as Liam helped me say), if the “center” has shifted rightward, so has the boundary at the left end of the spectrum… and this tends to bunch a wide range of left-wing opinions into a narrower and narrower band of the spectrum. I think this then creates a public misperception that someone from a group like Earth Liberation Front, for example, is representative of mainstream Democratic party beliefs, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
The GOP is better at managing the rightward expansion of the boundary at their end than the Democrats are at managing the rightward expansion of the boundary at the left end. To combat this effectively the Dems definitely have to do a better job advertising their party.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Boy oh boy, JollyRoger, you do paint a bleak picture… and not necessarily one with which I can wholeheartedly disagree.
However, we aren’t there yet, and except in my most depressed and negative moments, I’m not convinced we’re inevitably bound there (even if sometimes I sound that way on my own blog).
Our system of government is very well set up. The concepts behind our government are well drilled into the populace. In spite of the fact that the neoconservative movement had among its founders those who felt a “Pearl Harbor type event” would be the perfect catalyst for siezing power, the hand still has to be played carefully and delicately.
I don’t believe it will be Bush who sees the benefit. No matter what level of additional attacks may befall us, I think if our civil liberties are curtailed so quickly that Bush could conceivably try to call off the next election or insist he can legally run again, most people would reject that.
I do agree that the wholesale sale of this country’s debt to China is a major problem.
I also feel that the whole Diebold voting machine issue must be dealt with. There is sufficient evidence of hanky-panky in the 2004 election that I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure that Bush won that one. Recent rulings in Alaska and Ohio run counter to the best interests of a democracy, shrouding the results of elections in secrecy and refusing to allow any public oversight of the voting machines.
But if the U.S. is going to become an autocracy, I think the way it will most likely go down is slowly, subtly, over time, with a tweaked election result here and a slow eroding of civil liberties there. I think there are enough people pointing out the issues with the voting systems that in some areas, Diebold and similar voting systems have been rejected.
Sooner or later, someone is going to get wise to the idea that if the exit polls are wildly different from the official results (as had never happened before 2004, note I said “wildly different” not “wrong in a close race”) then maybe someone is tampering with the results.
Regardless, I do think JollyRoger’s end result is a possible one, but far frome a forgone conclusion. That’s why I blog. If we can open people’s eyes to the tricks that seem to be going on, and convince Republicans that Bush is not really one of them (can someone who builds that level of budget deficit really be one of the party of fiscal responsibility), and convince Democrats that replacing Bush with an equally corrupt Democrat is no solution, we may yet avoid this outcome.
Liam.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
(responses)
Rick, Liam & Snave- Thanks to you all for a fantastic debate and exchange of ideas/positions. This is what Democracy and freedom is really about.
Rick- Apology accepted. We all try to toss some sticks from time to time, because there really is a lot of writing out there that does not have a lot of depth or thought behind it. To engage in hearty debate takes time, and I am glad you have found your time here well spent. That is all I seek to accomplish. (Well, not all…but a great deal of Common Sense is to make people think through their own points of view with something other than superficial repitition. If after all is said and done we still disagree, then so be it. At least we’ve given ourselves a chance, and others a chance, to view things in more than one light.
As for all the peripheral topics that this post has engendered from Rick, Liam, and Snave, I think we could go on ad infinitum, and still be skirting around the main post topic. That is fine, but I’m going to move on now. Not for lack of things to say, just to move the debate on in another direction. There has been much here to generate new posts and I look forward to hearing from you all again.
Jolly- Your scenario represents the gravest ending for the current path. I agree with others that we are not there yet, nor is that outcome inevitable, but we are tending in that direction. Democracies (and/or federal republics) withstand the test of tyranny by the will of the people to continue to grow, debate, and move forward while accepting that all sides may have valuable things to offer. A unitary executive or autocratic government rejects that premise. I would like to think that Americans will accept the former position and reject the latter, but time will tell.
ZThanks, again, to all for a lively exchange.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Thanks, Ken.
It’s been fun. Hopefully we can get another good conversation going on another one of your posts sometime in the future.
Liam.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:21 am
Hello, folks, this was quite a lively discussion. What I liked about it was that the liberal was honest, forthcoming and straight on, the leftist was sane and had good ideas, the conservative made no sense and really didn’t have a clue, and that’s America, baby!
I love that spying on frigging Greenpeace is fine with these fascists a-holes, and sticking a wand up every Mexican granny’s ass on the way to see her children in Florida is perfectly acceptable in the “War On Terr-uh”.
I think people should wake up and smell the Nazi-odeur that’s wafting from their hide-leather shoes. We are treading dangerously close to a fascist dictatorship. We’re only one good disaster or concurrent “terrorist” attack from total martial law. Bird flu ring a bell? When even Thom Hartmann begins squawking about it for real, you know there’s something to it.
This government is in hock to the corporations, and they are developing their own police forces. Google “Target Security Police” We are infor a world of hurt, my friends, if we don’t put down our hammers and our hot dogs and our magazines and get into the streets, marching for peace. This war will continue sucking blood and tears and stack of millions and even billions of dollars every single day, until we end it through the power of peaceful protest. It’s happened in the past, and it can happen again. The people of Iraq and the people this policy has harmed irrevocably all over the world deserve our support.
Think about it when you’re eating that good steak. Think about it when you’re polishing that shotgun and thinking about how much you love your leader. Think about it when you’re playing with your kids and a car nearby backfires.
Now imagine what it would be like, if that car had exploded. And shrapnel was soaring through the air towards your child? And your neighbors and coworkers and friends had to live in that environment, and see their bank accounts dwindle, and have to watch their children get sick, and have no way of fixing their situation, other than by going into debt, and taking pills, and wishing they could make the war and all their other problems would just go away.
Now imagine you’re that person’s spouse, typing onto a computer screen your frustrations about the suffering you are experiencing. What would you tell the world, when your location is a secret, and you don’t want to let the world know who you are, because you might be in the insurgency, and you may have no idea where your next meal will be coming from, and maybe this is the last time you will communicate with anyone anywhere ever again.
Imagine how you would feel, if being a Leftist meant being a target, a name on a list, an expendable enemy of the state, tried and convicted in absentia for your beliefs, for your commitment to your people and your cause, and for that your country was seized by force and your entire people’s future put on hold.
Would you stay silent? Would you stay home and go about your business, watching your friends and neighbors lose their lives and their businesses, with no aid or hope for recovery?
When an entire market is bombed with depleted uranium cruise missiles, and over fifty people are murdered, in an instant? Would you stay silent then? What would you tell the families of the people who lived in that neighborhood and are irrevocably harmed by that incident, how would you explain to them the danger of the poisonous particles that now reside within their bodies, wreaking havoc inside the cells of unborn babies growing in their mothers’ wombs?
Would you not rise up, and take up the banner of protest? Would you not retain the right to carry a weapon in case your life might be in danger? Would you not ask your friends and neighbors to look out for you, and to work to stick together? Is that what they call an insurgency?
Is this what they taught our citizens to call something bad? Something evil, something icky like Saddamism? That sounds dirty, doesn’t it? Kinda like Satanism, heh heh.
This philosophy, the idea that we are Good and those I-Rack-EEs are ragwearing camel-jockeys is working real well for us. It’s got us into a totally unnecessary and politically advantageous bloody war with a people that just want nothing more than for us to leave their country.
THere is no possible link to any Iraqi National, either connected to the Saddam government or not, ever of committing terrorist acts against this country, the United States of America. Only until we the United States of America made agressive moves within the Middle East, first sanctions against Iraq and then a giant, full-scale military invasion with cowboy boots on, did we ever see full-scale suicide car in the marketplace kind of killings in Iraq.
This sh*t doesn’t just happen, it has to happen. It happens because people refuse to let their country be ripped away from them by dictatorial fascists, and they fight back. Just like we will fight back if they ever take us to prison camps and torture us.
I can’t wait till these neo-fascist Klansmen get to the Pearly Gates and have to stand in the long line watching black people and Puerto Rican people and people of all kinds of other races going to the line way at the front – the express line for oppressed minorities.
God bless Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for being a better man than me and saying we have got to love our enemies, even at their worst. I wish I could love you, you right-wing wackos. But I can’t. Sorry. You have totally lost my vote. As someone who totally believes in the Democratic process, I think everyone should get a chance to vote before someone is totally written off, but I sure don’t wanna know ya. Maybe God does.
Hope he likes you, cause there’s one red devil who I bet loves to talk about “necessary roughness” and “softening” people “up for questioning”. Are you sure you’re reading the right translation of the Bible, church-goer? What if Isaiah was right, and those who mix church and state are bound to corrupt both? What if the crimes of that era are eclipsed by the crimes of this era, crimes like Enron and Worldcom and Kmart and the Sago Mine disaster? What if the great sin of our age was not religious apathy but religious idolatry? The worship of a false god known as “Freedom”. For you, Freedom is a gift God gave us cause we earned it. Because we were the best at getting it. And Democracy is the way you can earn your Freedom. And if you don’t have Democracy, military dictatorship is almost as good. Enjoy, fellas!
P.S. Your jackboots are coming. There was some mix up in Purchasing. The thought Goebbells was spelled Gerbels. I straightened em out. Enjoy!
March 18th, 2006 at 3:28 am
Just so ya know, that was satire. I don’t really think your name is Goebbells. Your parents Americanized it when they came over to Gerber. Thye saw the baby food, didn’t want to be associated with mass-killings of Jewish men, women and children, and thought “hey, we’ll change our name and just pretend to like black people! And then we’ll teach our children to want to kill them in some sort of weird religious fervor upon orders from a God-like King figure to be named later! Hooray!
Come over to The American Peoples’ Congress if you’re man enough, sissy [women welcome too, it’s a party!]