Enterprise: Voyager?
In comments to the previous entry, Thoreau wonders
If the people profiting from the current situation find the Democrats sufficiently to their liking (once brought to heel) then the Republicans might find themselves in the surprising position of being tossed to the wayside when their former Masters find new hosts to occupy.
Unlikely. You can’t understand the Obscure Executive, or The Movement or whatever you prefer to call it unless you internalize the bizarre truth: They really believe this stuff. It’s tempting to think of the network of contractors and water carriers and foundations as cynical operators, just a particularly bloody-minded effort in rent-seeking using Rovian attack politics to manipulate dupes into further fattening already bulging wallets. No.
The jabber about GOP schisms among “theocons” and “moneycons” and “security hawks” ignores the overlap of all three tendencies at the core of the contemporary Republican Party and “conservative” movement. Democrats are the party of treason isn’t just something bloggers and barflies believe. It’s the firm conviction of very wealthy and powerful stalwarts of the American Right. Christian Dominionism isn’t just for the rubes. I won’t argue that your average hedge fund manager is an evangelical Christian – I don’t think there’s much firm evidence either way – but the Republican Party is full of Chamber of Commerce types, network-marketing operators, defense contractors and mid-cap executives who subscribe to “prosperity gospel” theology. Meanwhile, while one runs into a minority of conservative Christians whose beliefs lead them to oppose war and torture, the bulk of the religious right regards war against Muslims as a moral, well, crusade.
The GOP’s center of gravity subscribes to idiosyncratic conceptions of “free enterprise”; Christianity and “national security” simultaneously. Richard Mellon Scaife funds groups with ties to Christian Reconstructionism. As a young man, Erik Prince of Blackwater interned at the Family Research Council. His father helped finance it. Do you really think someone like Erik Prince was embarrassed by the Schiavo affair, or even indifferent to it?
“Right” libertarianism as such never gained genuine traction because, even among business people, there’s not a huge constituency for the classic simplification, “economically conservative and socially liberal.” (And, we might add, dovish.) Instead they are Pew’s “Enterprisers.”
The Obscure Executive may be rich and corrupt – but I can tell I’m starting wrong. Let me begin again. The Obscure Executive is rich and corrupt, but it sees itself as a cadre of Christian patriots at permanent war with the enemy within as much as external threats. We look at the Democratic Party and see co-opted, managerialist shills. They look at the same group and see the Manson Family. It’s what gets them up in the morning.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Jim,
I’m sure many on the right really do drink their own kool-aid regarding the Dems, but the fact remains that the Democrats are (1) willing to play ball (as evidenced by their capitulations in the past year) and (2) subscribers to many (no, not all, but many) of the same notions regarding America’s relationship with the world. Somebody must recognize these facts and reward the Dems for it. If there were no reward for selling out, the Democrats wouldn’t do it as blatantly and consistently as they have.
OK, you guys can laugh at that last sentence, but think about it seriously. If the people who own the Right weren’t willing to reward capitulation, the Dems would find somebody else to capitulate to. No, I don’t hold any illusions that they’d honor the wishes of the earnest activists who support them. They’d still do what politicians do and betray their supporters for personal gain. But they would betray their supporters for somebody who’s actually willing to pay.
People break promises to get something more than just a giggle.
Comment by Moe Blues —
January 20, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
That’s close to the truth, but not quite there.
For many rank-and-file Republicans, politics and governance exist only in the context of defeating The Democrat Party. Those people do, indeed, view the Democratic Party as the Manson Family–pure, unalloyed evil bent on complete domination of America and dissolution of all we hold dear. The vast majority of these folks are middle class and older.
And then there’s the moneyed interests. They don’t much like the Democrats, but that’s only because Democrats have a perverse interest in making government actually work. For example, Democratic school boards try to implement policies and provide funding that results in children receiving viable educations. The moneyed interests, however, view government solely as a means to distribute money and favors among themselves. To use our school-board example, they favor a Republican school board because that board will invariably slash funding, push for home schooling, and direct whatever money it can to cronies. Whether the kids get educated is beside the point–an afterthought at best.
I have watched this dynamic up-close and personal, having been involved in local and state-wide Florida politics for the last 8 years. It’s always the same.
On the plus side, though, the rank-and-file Republicans are so poorly informed and unaware that they’re extremely easy to dupe. They will vote for anyone–anyone at all–who has an “R” next to their name. Thus, in one county in which I worked, the bulk of the county commissioners are actually Democrats who changed their party affililation simply to get the “R” next to their name. The actual Republican Party apparatus works hard and spends loads of money trying to unseat the commissioners, but hasn’t yet succeeded because an overwhelming majority of of voters walk into the booth and simply yank the Republican lever without even thinking.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Moe Blues-
I think you’re being a bit too charitable to Democrats, and over-simplifying conservatives. Democrats might want the state to work, but I’m not sure they are really competent enough to make it work as well as they think they’re making it work. I’ll grant your point about their sentiments, but you are a bit too charitable on their actions.
With Republicans, they talk about smashing the state, but they just never get around to doing it. They put it on steroids and grow it some new appendages that are more to their liking. Even the Obscure Executive that Jim refers to, while often operating in ostensibly private outfits, is ultimately a state. It’s just not a state answering to the usual channels of authority that show up on the Civics Class flowcharts.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Finally:
Jim, you may be right about how The Movement will never accept the Dems. I still think that America is more likely to fall under a Shadow that comes from the Right than from the Left. Perhaps it’s even happened already.
However, I don’t under-estimate the ability of politicians to morph, or for power to flow in surprising ways. If a Dem President is able to deliver what the owners of the Right want while keeping the left appeased, then a deal might be struck. I keep this possibility in mind because I don’t want to ever fall into the trap where I think that one of the parties really is beyond dark influences.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Moe, as a longtime observer of the Washington DC school board, your ascription of motives to the Democratic Party gives me the bitterest chuckle I’ve had in a week.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
Thoreau, I agree with Jim here, and it’s not that I think nobody in the Democratic Party is unwilling to do what the Republican machine wants, it’s just that the machine simply never will accept a Democrat for the role. The evil intention and evil actions to demonstrate it are there, but it still won’t impress the other evil guys.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
OK, I think I get it: Jim is referring to one element of Team Empire. Other elements of Team Empire might work with Dems, but this element of Team Empire will never abandon the GOP, so the GOP will not be tossed aside no matter how cooperative a Democratic President is. Rather, the parties will struggle with each other while still serving Team Empire.
I can get that.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Thoreau,
90-95% of the Democrats in Congress vote exactly the way you want them to on the war and on surveillance and other “national security” issues, and yet you continue to define “Democrats” in terms of the tiniest fringe of the party that sides with the Republicans on it.
Why is that?
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
joe, I actually agree with you, at least about the rank and file Senators and especially Representatives. But just enough of the leadership, and a critical mass of the so-called policy community (O’Pollack Syndrome) cuts the other way to vitiate the votes of the rank and file. You have to admit, that’s . . . interesting.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Let’s put this in perspective:
With Ron Paul in the race, the anti-war pposition is better represented among Republican presidential candidates than the pro-war position is represented among Congressional Democrats.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
joe-
I am looking at the party as an institution. I look at the leaders that the Congressional Dems elect, and the reluctance of those leaders and many other Congressional Dems to invoke procedure-fu to stop bad bills. If they refuse to filibuster, and if the leaders that they have installed hold votes on horrific bills opposed by what you claim is an overwhelming majority of the majority (we’re not talking about Hastert’s 51% of 51% here), then it’s tempting to conclude that they’re playing us for fools.
Yes, I’m aware of The Dodd. I praise him regularly. He won a great battle in Dececmber. Even then, he did it with only 20 voting on the side of the angels. 20 of 50 (I don’t count Joe Lieberman as a Senate Dem, but I do count Bernie Sanders, for all intents and purposes) is less than a majority of the majority voting on the side of the angels. Sure, that minority of the majority was enough, but it was (1) a rare exception and (2) probably nothing more than a delay.
I’ll be calling my Senators this week, but I’m not optimistic.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Senator: “Hey, I voted against it, but I was outnumbered. What more do you want me to do?”
Me: “Filibuster. Oust the Majority ‘Leader’ who allows these votes to happen. Place secret holds. Dig out whatever rule books Orrin Hatch was using in the 1990’s. Figure out the trick the Republicans used last summer where they filibustered but you guys were required to do the talking, and turn it around. Load up war appropriations bills with subsidies for abortion clinics staffed by gay people so that Republicans are forced to vote against them. Get Robert Byrd to add the appropriations, if you can’t figure it out. He’s good at that sort of thing.”
Senator: “That’s crazy talk! You want me to do something that would actually stop this nonsense?”
joe: “Thoreau, what else do you want him to do?”
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
One more request: Get Robert Byrd to appropriate funds for a Chris Dodd Center for Doddacity Studies. My university can host it. I respect the Dodd.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Well it would have to be in West Virginia . . .
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Damn!
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Jim,
I blame Reid and Hoyer. I think they’re dragging Pelosi down.
It is indeed interesting how such people, so out of touch with such a large majority of their party, came to power. It is probably more reasonable to look to the Democrats’ status as the national minority party for two and a half decades (four, if we’re talking specifically about “national security”) and the accommodationist – perhaps capitulationist – mindset that it produced. Oh my goodness, we have to put people who are acceptable to “middle America” in leadership positions!
Some of the Democrats are still too afraid to act on their beliefs. That’s the horse. These conspiratorial mutterings are the zebra.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Thoreau, you make a case about weakness in dissent, not consensus.
You know you put steel in the spine of people who are afraid they’ll get squashed if they oppose the Republicans? You make the Republicans weaker.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Or maybe, just maybe, she took impeachment off the table and rushed through bad bills because she doesn’t really want to change anything. Or at least she doesn’t want it enough to fight. It’s not like she’s some sort of political naif hanging on Reid’s and Hoyer’s every word for guidance.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Or maybe, just maybe, having two bhouses of Congress at war with each other isn’t something that she’s keen on.
It’s funny how everything the Democrats actually do to oppose the White House is just for show, while only those particular actions that are political suicide – impeachment, cutting off funding for troops while they are deployed in a war zone – qualify in your judgement as being genuine acts of opposition.
Oh, and only when they are taken off the table do you decide that they are the only acts that you would accept as a good enough.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
joe, if she isn’t willing to go to the mat with the Senate over grave abuses of executive power then she doesn’t understand that in a system of checks and balances it is necessary for different branches to fight with each other.
As to “just for show”, until they have an actual accomplishment under their belt, it isn’t a useful act of opposition.
As to impeachment, we’re in crisis mode, joe. You know (I believe you’ve even said) that it is imperative to punish these guys, to get better behavior from future Presidents. This is worth losing an election over.
Finally, regarding troops in the field: My understanding is that when funding for a war is cut off the law allows DoD to buy fuel and whatever else it takes to support a safe and orderly withdrawal. They wouldn’t be leaving troops stranded. The law provides remedies here.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
How about this, joe: What will you say about Reid and Pelosi if they pass amnesty for illegal wiretappers? What if they refuse to even try using procedure-fu to kill it?
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Not useful in the opposition is one thing.
You are going well beyond that, into claiming that they are active accomplices.
That is nonsense, thoreau.
And do you what allows the DoD to spend money on fuel and whatnot even more clearly than “the law?” The party that actively supports the war regaining the majority and holding the White House, and passing appopriations bills for the next twenty years.
Our system was deliberately designed to make radical changes of course difficult and slow, and yet you take it as evidence that a party with 51% control of Congress can’t effect a radical change in short order as evidence that they actively support the status quo?
That is nonsense.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
How about this, joe: What will you say about Reid and Pelosi if they pass amnesty for illegal wiretappers? What if they refuse to even try using procedure-fu to kill it?
That they are cowards.
Comment by joe —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
PS, thoreau.
Pelosi – or rather, the noisy and anarchic body she holds a high position in – has already passed a bill that denies amnesty.
Like I said, I think Reid is dragging her down.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Our system was also deliberately designed to make waging war difficult. Ending wars should be easier than starting them. And notice how just about every aspect of war and its conduct is placed under Congress, not the executive. What I’m calling for is in keeping with the original intent.
I’m glad the House passed a bill that doesn’t have amnesty for illegal wiretappers (violating the sovereignty of my phone, I say!). The real test comes if the Senate passes a bill with amnesty. Will Pelosi allow it to come to a vote in the House?
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
joe, something I forgot to bring up before: In this and the other thread you’ve implied that the Democrats will behave better once they have both Congress and the White House. I’m a libertarian, and I recall another party that promised to curb the powers of the state if only that party got control over more of the government….
I know that there are some differences between the situations, but can you see why these sorts of “assurances” make me uneasy? It’s not the first time I’ve heard this story, after all.
Comment by Azael —
January 21, 2008 @ 5:02 am
Our system was also deliberately designed to make waging war difficult
If so, it didn’t work too well at all. I can deliberately design a bridge that doesn’t require gravity, too. Doesn’t mean it will actually – you know – work in practice.
What I’m calling for is in keeping with the original intent.
What’s rather frustrating to listen to is that you keep insisting that the spider walk up the vertical teflon surface. It can’t. The issue isn’t intent, it’s mechanism. Intent and $3.50 will buy you a Venti, Non-Fat Mocha. It’s kind of weird to keep hearing about the triumph of the will and the Libertarian version of the Green Lantern theory.
Systems work because they work, not because someone intended them to work. If you don’t like the way that the system has consistently been working, then stop complaining about intent and start figuring out ways to make it do what you want it to do.
Life sucks and liberal democracy is an exceedingly rare and fragile phenomena. It doesn’t just magically produce itself out of self flagellation from the invisible hand. If it did, then pretty much every country would have democracy and ponies by now. The Libertarian idea that if we simply got out of the way, true democracy would spring like a pony from our brow is frighteningly like the whole idea that if we just got rid of Sadaam, liberal democracy would flourish in Iraq and sweep across the middle east.
Finally, it’s well known since the beginning of time that power and wealth corrupt. Even if it’s not corruption of the soul, certainly it’s corruption of intent in that compromise is the oil of politics that keeps things from seizing up. And given that raising money for their campaigns is priority one for every politician (thanks, all you who are opposed to election funding reform, you’re plan is working!) it’s inevitable that the people with lots of money to spread around – i.e. Telecoms in your beef de jour – will bend key players and effectively subvert any good “intentions” of those many who aren’t completely corrupted.
Kind of funny to see anarcho capitalists complaining about a process that is largely – if not entirely – driven by the massive amounts of money in the system while they fight tooth and nail against anything even remotely approaching regulation of such.
Something about “enough rope to hang one’s self” with comes to mind.
Comment by Glaivester —
January 21, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Our system was deliberately designed to make radical changes of course difficult and slow, and yet you take it as evidence that a party with 51% control of Congress can’t effect a radical change in short order as evidence that they actively support the status quo?
Except that the Democrats do not need to pass anything to force an end to the war. They simply need not to pass a funding bill, which is very easy.
Comment by ajay —
January 21, 2008 @ 11:08 am
They simply need not to pass a funding bill, which is very easy.
Not that easy; only a few of them need to defect for the bill to be passed.
Comment by Barry —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Comment by Thoreau —
January 20, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Our system was also deliberately designed to make waging war difficult. Ending wars should be easier than starting them. And notice how just about every aspect of war and its conduct is placed under Congress, not the executive. What I’m calling for is in keeping with the original intent.
I’d just like to add that the accumulation of war powers by the presidency is well over a century old. IMHO, it’s a serious flaw in the constitutional system, which interacts horribly with the other serious flaw, that impeachment (and removal from office) of the president is so hard.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Kind of funny to see anarcho capitalists complaining about a process that is largely – if not entirely – driven by the massive amounts of money in the system while they fight tooth and nail against anything even remotely approaching regulation of such.
I’m pretty moderate by libertarian standards.
Go buy carbon offsets for all the strawmen you’re burning.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Oops, the first paragraph in that previous comment was supposed to be italicized or block-quoted or something. It was a quote from somebody else.
In my defense, I didn’t type that comment. It was done by a staffer without my knowledge.
Comment by Azael —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I’m pretty moderate by libertarian standards.
So, I’m assuming then that you’re going to be 100% behind any campaign finance reform efforts? You may be moderate, but it’d be surprising to find your that moderate.
In any event, it’s only a straw man if it’s false. Since your comment was ambiguous – at best – I can only assume you’re flinging the straw man argument defense around because you actually wouldn’t support any campaign reform and haven’t in the past.
As I said, I’m waiting to be surprised and will glad admit to a straw man argument if you can show otherwise.
Comment by Azael —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
I’m pretty moderate by libertarian standards.
So, I’m assuming then that you’re going to be 100% behind any campaign finance reform efforts? You may be moderate, but it’d be surprising to find your that moderate.
In any event, it’s only a straw man if it’s false. Since your comment was ambiguous – at best – I can only assume you’re flinging the straw man argument defense around because you actually wouldn’t support any campaign reform and haven’t in the past…
As I said, I’m waiting to be surprised and will glad admit to a straw man argument if you can show otherwise.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 21, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Actually, Azael, I’m deeply conflicted on campaign finance. I don’t buy for one moment the idea that writing a check to a candidate (or even his campaign) is purely an act of free speech. Sure, there can be an element of free speech in there (people do support campaigns in order to “send a message”) but we can’t pretend that there’s nothing else going on.
If that were all I needed to know, I’d be 100% in favor of campaign finance regulations.
OTOH, over the years we’ve seen a succession of campaign finance laws but the amount of money donated to and spent on elections has not decreased. Meanwhile, the complexity of the process has increased, and the ACLU has noted that campaign finance laws are being used to stop issue-oriented ads by organizations that are not endorsing candidates. That is indeed a violation of free speech rights.
I really, honestly, do not have a firm stance on campaign finance. This is one place where I’m genuinely conflicted. This should be great for you and for the libertarian purists, since they can lambast me for being squishy while you can lambast my hand-wringing over this as a convenient way to avoid coming down on your side.
If I ever do come up with a firm stance on this, I’ll be sure to run it by you so we can find out whether I deserve the title of “moderate libertarian” or not.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 21, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Here’s something I blogged about campaigns and funds last year:
http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/08/6757
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 21, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
About the line “Kind of funny to see anarcho capitalists complaining about a process”…
Just to cut to the chase, which Thoreau oddly isn’t – he’s not an anarcho-capitalist. I don’t know that any of the people posting here (as opposed to a commenter or two) are anarcho-capitalists.
So, yeah – straw man, no matter how Thoreau feels about campaign finance reform. Although I’m rather amused at this exchange:
So, I’m assuming then that you’re going to be 100% behind any campaign finance reform efforts?
The obvious absurdity is, well, obvious:
So, I’m assuming then that you’re going to be 100% behind any efforts to ban abortion?
…but it’s more fun to recognize that the humor is really in the Ab Libs nature of the non sequitor:
So, I’m assuming then that you’re going to be 100% behind any summer trips to Spain?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 21, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Huh, the preview system liked the nested blockquotes a lot better.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 21, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I’m pretty moderate by native Wisconsinite standards. So obviously I must be 100% behind the Chicago teams.
I’m pretty moderate by physicist standards. So obviously I must be 100% behind cold fusion research.
Comment by mds —
January 21, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I’m a cheese grater firebrand. In my defense, my intentions are gouda.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
January 21, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
mds wins the thread!
Comment by Jay Elias —
January 22, 2008 @ 2:33 am
This thread may be long dead, but I thought I’d weigh in on the conversation between Thoreau and joe.
It seems to me that issues like cowardice have little to do with the behavior of Pelosi et al. It is a matter of incentives.
What is Pelosi’s incentive to do what you or I want? Perhaps we live in her district, in which case she has a minor incentive to get our vote, but she cannot really lose a reelection bid.
Instead, the people who can offer her the most are Hoyer and Reid and the Republicans. Our support is far less of an incentive than keeping their support is.
Comment by annagranfors —
January 23, 2008 @ 10:03 am
wonderful post, although it’s yet another that makes me just wanna crawl back in bed and pull the covers way, way over my head.
(and was that a T-Bone Burnett quote in that last ‘graph?)
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 23, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Thanks, anna, and, Oh yes indeed it was.