What Bruce said
By Thoreau
From our wonderful comments gallery:
Obama is still, as of this moment, a lesser evil, so nearly as I can tell. But the worst thing about someone who so directly breaks clear promises is that you then lose rational grounds on which to assess their future prospects. I really don’t think, right now, that Obama can sink to McCain’s level in four months. But I have no argument to that effect. I can’t point at his history of accomplishments without keeping in mind that he’s now willing to toss over whatever seems inconvenient, and that he’s willing to adopt less popular positions when confronted with the alternative of doing the easy and honorable thing. This makes it hard to endorse voting for him in any but the most tepid terms.
What basis do we have for considering Obama worthy of support? The fact that he knows how to play nice with Reid and Pelosi? The fact that he talks a good talk while voting to give immunity to people who help Presidents break the law?
Can somebody make a case for him based on something other than “OMG! Look over there–John McCain!” Has he voted against war funding? Eric has pointed out that Obama has voted against torture and in favor of habeas corpus, and it’s a sad day in America when those are considered noteworthy and bold stances. Yes, yes, I know, McCain is scary. But from where I sit, I see a party that wants to do bad things and a party with a lot of office-holders who don’t actually want to stop any of those bad things. I need evidence that Obama is not one of those who fail to actually stop anything. Yes, he opposed the war in 2002 when it was unpopular to do so, and I think that the Obama of 2002 was a fine and brave man for doing that. I need to know that the Obama of 2008 (the one who has risen high and surrounded himself with insiders and reached out his hand to grasp the Ring) is not like that. With his FISA vote, I no longer have any confidence in him.
The burden has to be on Obama and his supporters to show that he is not just another guy who says nice stuff while playing ball. So, can somebody make a case for him, on his merits, that doesn’t involve “Look! Over there! John McCain!”? I’m not looking for libertarian or civil libertarian purity tests here. I’m looking for basic stuff: Evidence that he will support habeas corpus, oppose torture, oppose warrantless wiretaps, and end the war. You can say that these are unrealistically high hurdles to cross, but that’s f**king pathetic. If we are in a situation where even those very basic items are too much to ask for then I’m sitting it out. You can tell me that I’m only making it worse by doing so, but I maintain that once you reach that point the thing is basically on autopilot. It might not be at the bottom yet, but it’s heading there, and there’s no way to apply the brakes.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Can somebody make a case for him based on something other than “OMG! Look over there–John McCain!â€
Nope, not me. But as I said on this very site a few weeks ago, I’m pretty much voting the Supreme Court this time around. Obama may nominate SC Justices I don’t particularly like, whereas McCain is almost guaranteed to nominate SC Justices that I will find positively horrifying.
Maybe that’s not enough for you, Thoreau, and I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise, because I share your frustration with Obama. But c’mon–is the prospect of 2 or 3 more Tony Scalias sitting up there for the next 30 or 40 years really of no consequence?
Comment by cleek —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
at this point Obama is a gamble, but McCain is a guaranteed fail.
Comment by Hogan —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Not only do I have no evidence to offer you, I don’t even know what would count as evidence. The problem with something like the FISA vote in this context is that it drastically reduces the amount of usable evidence about what Obama will do as president. You can’t use what he’s saying, because he said he would oppose this bill and then he didn’t; you can’t use his past votes, because there’s very little in his past voting record that would point to this. What else is there?
(I’m still going to vote for him, ’cause, you know, OMG John McCain!)
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Is Bruce Baugh the best UO blogger who never actually blogs here, or is that Neel?
Comment by Tom —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Aren’t those “very basic items” an argument for voting for Bob Barr? I’m not thrilled
with everything he’s said and done (I didn’t like his statement praising Jesse Helms when Helms died and I don’t like his immigration stance) but on civil liberties and the war, he seems pretty solid.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
It’s Bruce. He (and Jacob Sullum, too) expanded my worldview a lot a few weeks back when they pointed out that a nearly-infallible sign of someone trying to hide incompetence is when they brag about process and inputs rather than outcomes and results.
That is an awesomely useful heuristic — I feel measurably smarter for having heard it.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Let me simply quote Mike Tomasky:
Comment by Donald Johnson —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
“Look! Over there! John McCain!—
That’s by far the best argument. It’s lesser of two evils. There’s the Supreme Court issue, as Uncle Kvetch said. Also, I think Obama is less likely to start a war with Iran, which you admitted was a fair point when John Cole made it in the other thread.
Comment by B —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Yes, he opposed the war in 2002 when it was unpopular to do so, and I think that the Obama of 2002 was a fine and brave man for doing that.
It’s also worth pointing out that Obama was in the Illinois legislature in 2002, where his stance on the war was pretty much irrelevant.
Within scant weeks of clinching the nomination, he has moved to the alleged “middle” on wiretaps, presumably because that’s what he’s decided he needs to do to win the election. Perhaps what is most upsetting about this is that he may be correct.
But if he rolls this easily on one of the more egregious offenses to the Bill of Rights committed by the Bush administration for the sake of political expediency, there really is no reason to suspect he will act any differently in office. If anything, he’s likely to be worse once elected. There are no principles at work here.
(Naturally, this makes Obama no worse than any other politician. But certainly no better, either.)
Between this and his (already well-established) propensity for big government, there really is no reason for a self-identifying libertarian to support him. (No reason to support McCain, either.)
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
When Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he sponsored a bill requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in murder cases. You might remember something about Illinois and the death penalty back in the 90s.
Initially, the Republicans were against it, the police chiefs were against it, the police unions were against it, the governor was against it, and the Mayor of Chicago was against it. So, obviously, most of the Democrats were against it.
Barack Obama then proceeded to talk each of those groups into supporting the bill, and it eventually passed the Senate unanimously, and the House nearly unanimously. It serves today as a model that other states are copying.
This, from a black legislator from the South Side of Chicago.
This tells me a great deal about both what matters to Barack Obama, and also what he is able to accomplish.
I want somebody who does things like that as President. If you don’t see any difference between the person I just described and John McCain, well, that’s on you.
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
As a matter of fact, I want somebody like that to be president so badly that I’m willing to overlook some political maneuvering that I dislike.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
The Barack Obama who cared so deeply about misconduct by agents of the state was a great legislator. He seems to have been replaced by the Barack Obama who voted for a bill that immunized people who helped the President commit crimes.
People change as they get closer and closer to positions of great power.
Comment by Derek Copold —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Remember, elections aren’t just about the persons. They’re about parties, and sometimes you have to settle for punishing a certain party by rewarding the other, if it’s not entirely deserving. The GOP has gotten us into an unnecessary war and negelected basic budgetary responsibilities. From my POV, it’s also been unforgiveably negligent of the border, which has exacerbated the illegal alien problem. It would do far too much damage to the country, IMO, to reward the Republicans for this by giving them the White House again.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
ChrisWWW-
I think it’s likely that things would be different if Gore had won in 2000. However, the party has changed over 8 years, as evidence by the repeated capitulation of the Democratic Party leadership when they regained control in 2006. Nader may have been wrong about those 2 particular candidates in 2000, but he may be right about the parties in 2008.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Evidence that he will support habeas corpus, oppose torture, oppose warrantless wiretaps, and end the war.
I don’t know what Obama will do, but the coalition he will have to build if he wants to win, and the one–due to natural inertia–that will survive his Administration will be much more supportive of all of those things. You’re not picking a player, you’re picking a team.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Derek-
Yes, the GOP deserves punishment. Much, much punishment. The problem is that since the Democrats took “control” in 2006 they have been doing everything in their power to merit ample punishment as well. In that situation, sitting it out becomes tempting, oh so tempting.
Comment by KWK —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Thoreau,
If only we could have the Obama of 2002 facing off against the McCain of 2000, this might be an infinitely more interesting–and much less angst-ridden–race all around.
@ChrisWWW (#7): One of the more eye-opening reads for me on this topic was Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science. If the level of politicization of (ostensibly) career government service positions in so many off-the-beaten-path agencies is so shocking, it makes me even more worried about high-profile places like the DoJ and DoD. While some big heads have rolled (Gonzalez, Rumsfeld) now and again, how many similar cases have flown under the radar for the last 8 years?
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
On Iran: I want to believe that there’s a difference. In an ideal world, where Obama inherits the foreign policy situation as it exists right now and has latitude with Congress and a stiff spine, there probably is a difference.
In the real world, where he can’t assume power until after the current administration has had 6 more months to bang war drums and exacerbate tensions, and where he’s under all sorts of political constraints and feels the need to show resolve, I don’t know what he would do if he got reports from commanders in the field that an Iranian military unit was on the wrong side of the wrong line in the wrong disputed territory….
On the Supreme Court: Sorry, but both parties hold far too many voters hostage with “Vote for me or [circle one: more babies will die, women will resort to coat-hangers].” I refuse to play that game.
Comment by kishnevi —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I think that you are looking at the question from the wrong end. If Obama wins, then from 1/20/09 Pelosi & Co. will be dealing with Obama and a Democratic, undoubtedly much more liberal, administration. It won’t be a question of whether Obama will go along with torture and wiretaps. It’s a question of whether Obama will authorize torture and wiretaps.
And the real problem reaches much farther than Pelosi, Obama et al. They’re letting themselves be rolled by the Bush administraiton because they don’t want to be perceived as soft on national security, and the reason they don’t be perceived as soft is because to all appearances the majority of the American public seems to think that wiretaps, torture, and several other things are helpful when it comes to security, and that security should trump ideals every time. It’s taken almost seven years to get a large enough part of the public to decide that striking out blindly against people we don’t like is not in general a good idea, and that’s only because the negatives of the War on Iraq are fairly obvious. But until the American public starts to realize that security shouldn’t trump everything else every time, the Bush side will win every time, even if the Bush side happens to be incarnate in a Democratic administration.
How to change that, I don’t know. Nor do I know if Obama will authorize torture and wiretaps. So there remain only two arguments, and they’ve been pointed out by previous comments already–voting for Obama is a rejection of the GOP, and an Obama victory will allow the federal government to be staffed by people who do believe that security doesn’t always trump ideals.
But I guess I ought to admit that I’ll be voting for Barr.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
On the Supreme Court: Sorry, but both parties hold far too many voters hostage with “Vote for me or [circle one: more babies will die, women will resort to coat-hangers].†I refuse to play that game.
I have no idea what that means.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
KWK-
And if we could just get Thin Elvis, 1950’s Marlon Brando, and pre-meltdown Britney Spears to provide the half-time show entertainment for the 2002 Obama vs. 2000 McCain debate, that would be sweet!
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Uncle Kvetch-
It’s a reference to abortion and the Supreme Court. There are, or at least were, a lot of voters who are hostage to that issue (on both sides). Hell, a very smart friend of mine said a few weeks ago that he’s terrified that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned because “With Hillary out of the race women’s issues aren’t even on the radar.”
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
the majority of the American public
So build a different majority. Which Obama will have to do to win. This isn’t a hard question.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
So…because a lot of voters base their votes on what you see as a distorted or exaggerated view of the significance of the abortion issue, you’ve concluded that the Supreme Court is completely inconsequential in deciding how to vote? Or am I missing something here?
Sorry if I can’t join you in thinking of it as a “game,” Thoreau–as a gay man, all I need to do is reread Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas to be reminded how deadly serious it is.
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I agree that this vote screws with the data: you trust his other policy promises less, you trust his speeches less, and you can’t rely on the Obama of 2002 to tell you so much about the Obama of 2008. So, I’ll tell you: the recent step that encourages me most is introducing legislation to improve accountability for security contractors in Iraq in February 2007–after he knew he was running for President, and months before the Nisoor Square massacre got this into the news. He’s not where I or Jeremy Scahill is on the question of Blackwater–see here–but his record is notably above average for a major politician. Here is the most recent public statement of his I can find on contractors.
I think, at a bare minimum, that they should be banned from government functions like combat and interrogation. I think there is a decent chance of that happening under Obama (either at his own initiative or because a House member attaches it to a bill) & no chance under McCain.
The other policy area where he’s really exceeded my expectations is immigration–an issue where the Democratic party leadership tends to cave & do things like sign AEDPA and IIRIRA & cave on bills like Tom Tancredo’s. His lead immigration advisor is quite progressive & Obama’s been agressive on an issue where based on the political dynamic a year ago you might expect the Democratic nominee to be feckless & defensive.
On torture: I really don’t think he’ll continue it. I think he will end rendition too, which as you know began under Clinton. I don’t have much confidence that he’ll take the steps needed to ensure it doesn’t happen again under a future administration. I don’t know about his detention policies more generally–I believe he’ll close Guantanamo, but I don’t know what he’ll do with detainees, I don’t know about Bagram, I don’t know about his position on an administrative detention law, etc. I realize this paragraph is low on cites. But I do not bullshit about these issues (and this paragraph reflects my own lowered expectations based on his FISA sellout).
On the drug war & prisons, I think he has shown some awareness that our policies are fucked; the question is whether we can trust him to actually do anything about it. This is another maybe–terrorism has replaced drugs & crime as the leading bogeyman, & I think Obama realizes that, but I don’t know what he’d actually do in office.
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
I also think he is extremely unlikely to start a war with Iran. I thought mentioning that might be grading too much on a curve, but, given that McCain might…
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
“On the Supreme Court: Sorry, but both parties hold far too many voters hostage with “Vote for me or [circle one: more babies will die, women will resort to coat-hangers].†I refuse to play that game.”
Meaning you don’t think abortion is relevant? Because that’s not the main reason I’d mention the Supreme Court. There’s a 5-4 majority for habeas at Guantanamo. I would bank on that holding or maybe improving by one vote if we’re lucky under Obama, and falling under McCain. Also, if you care about torture issues, the lower courts have also had a major effect, both as far as delaying things for years & throwing cases out that the Supreme Court then denies cert. on–the D.C. Circuit in particular is a fucking disaster area for civil liberties. Right now you need a miraculously lucky panel draw to have a shot at a decent result; without some liberal appointees it’s going to become mathematically impossible. I don’t Roe v. Wade is a particularly compelling reason for someone with your priorties to vote Democratic, but the courts collectively probably would justify voting Democratic all by themselves.
Comment by IOZ —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Sympathy for the Hageean-Zionist eschatology: perhaps there’s virtue in hastening the End Times.
“Remember, elections aren’t just about the persons. They’re about parties[.]” True dat, but the obvious extension of this perfectly reasonable observation is that empires aren’t about parties any more than parties are about individual personalities. What impels the United States to imperial adventures and aggressive war (not to mention a host of lesser evils) is structural and systemic. Gorbachev was a damn sight better than Khrushchev, who was light-years in the direction of the Good from Uncle Joe, but neither relative nor actual goodness was sufficient to alter or forestall their empire’s inevitable expansion, peak, decline, and demise.
The thing about the Leviathan is that we’re all inside.
Comment by Derek Copold —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
The problem is that since the Democrats took “control†in 2006 they have been doing everything in their power to merit ample punishment as well. In that situation, sitting it out becomes tempting, oh so tempting.
First, I wouldn’t “sit it out.” Pick a third party candidate at least, to register you view, as small as it may be in the larger picture. You should also look downballot.
Second, neither party is going to seriously reform unless it’s definitively sent to the showers. Staying the GOP will put that off. A GOP completely out of power will have to reform. This is doubly so if they’re sent packing because of an issue like the war.
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Also, on contractors: whether or not he is willing to completely ban mercenaries from combat, I am confident that he is serious about actually prosecuting them when they murder people based on the 2007 legislation.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
Gorbachev was a damn sight better than Khrushchev, who was light-years in the direction of the Good from Uncle Joe, but neither relative nor actual goodness was sufficient to alter or forestall their empire’s inevitable expansion, peak, decline, and demise.
Love to see the modeling that justified that claim. It seems to me that the demise of the USSR’s empire went absurdly, ridiculously well.
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Also, a general note:
“But from where I sit, I see a party that wants to do bad things and a party with a lot of office-holders who don’t actually want to stop any of those bad things”
I agree that Democrats in Congress haven’t shown much sign of actually wanting to stop any of those bad things (with some exceptions), though with they haven’t generally actively promoted them either (again, with some exceptions–but most of the caucus seems basically indifferent). But a Democratic President isn’t given the option of passive neutrality. Either his administration authorizes & commits torture or it doesn’t. Either his administration participates in rendition or it doesn’t. Either his administration holds people without charge or it doesn’t. Either his administration starts agressive wars or it doesn’t. etc. etc. I don’t have any confidence anymore in Obama taking the steps necessary to prevent these abuses from recurring. That would require more political courage & a higher prioritization of this stuff than he’s shown recently. But I don’t think he’ll actually take part in them (with the exception of the surveillance he just voted for–obviously the natural assumption that a candidate who votes for those powers intends to use them).
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
I strongly believe the GOP merits punishment. I said so in 2006. The problem is, the actual Democrats in power, as opposed to the fine folks who liven our discussions here, have bent over backwards to avoid punishing Republicans. Based on their actual behavior, IOZ’s theory that they’re all in on the con merits something close to the respect that he himself gives it.
Comment by Katherine —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
33 seems to be conflating criminal punishment & the punishment of not holding power. I have no confidence in the Dems imposing in the first kind–the second kind takes care of itself if the GOP loses the presidency.
Comment by Jenna —
July 11, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
It’s too high a hurdle. There’s really no such thing as a tight proof anyone will do anything.
I no longer trust him. I’m no longer excited that he’s going to be President. I’m probably going to vote for him, and if I do, I’m going to say for the sake of posterity, it’s because I will have thought he was the better choice to kill fewer innocent people. That at least he doesn’t actively *want* to go kill innocent people, that he doesn’t think that’s funny or interesting or necessary. I don’t think Senator McCain thinks of non-VIP Arabs as human and I think Senator Obama probably does.
I don’t know that I’m wholly sold on the moral reasoning behind voting for the probable lesser of two evils, so maybe I won’t.
But that said, I will make an argument for Senator Obama that is not simply “OMG McCain.”
If we don’t know how the candidates will act, if we can’t trust their honesty, then at least we know how they talk.
It will only matter if we have a Bush-like Administration again. To my eyes we’ve been governed for 7 years by someone who cares much more about spin than substance—not just in what he *says*, but in what he’s trying to *accomplish*. President Bush is using power for propaganda more than he’s using propaganda for power. The complicit press mouthing the administration line isn’t the *method*; a lot of the time, it’s the *point*.
And if we use those kinds of rules ever again, I’d rather have someone who talks in terms of coming together as a country than someone who talks about bullying as strength.
I think listening to President Obama will be better for this country than listening to President McCain.
It’s not a strong argument. It’s almost nothing. It’s pathetic to judge things on that standard.
But it’s there. It’s something. It’s examinable and reasonably verifiable just on the facts on the ground. For all I know a President Obama will kill just as many innocents or more as a President McCain. For all I know he’ll set worse things in motion, or the same terrible things in motion more competently. But if we have another rhetoric Presidency, Obama’s rhetoric is healthier and more likely to encourage a culture that values the fruition of others’ potential.
Comment by IOZ —
July 11, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
That’s it, Jim. Feel the power.
“Love to see the modeling that justified that claim. It seems to me that the demise of the USSR’s empire went absurdly, ridiculously well.” In fewer years than you might like to imagine, people will be saying precisely the same thing about ours. Military overextension; crippling defense budgets; a hollow economy; poor productive capacity; a dejected, exhausted citizenry; a lurching, reactionary governing apparatus; an entrenched culture of patronage and corruption; a slow but accelerating slide into dissipation and dissolution. What part of the model doesn’t fit?
Comment by Whammer —
July 11, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
IOZ, you’re right, I think — fits the model quite well.
The next question is what are the consequences? Do we go the way of the UK, or do we thrash about wildly and do something really stupid? Even more stupid, I should say…..
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
So, there are two possible reasons why we have a party with numerous elected officials who don’t actually try to stop the bad things:
1) Those elected officials are mostly scared of losing elections, but deep in their hearts they mean well. There is surely an element of truth there, but it has become less and less plausible as Bush has become less and less popular. Also, to give credit where credit is due, anecdotes have accumulated where Democrats speak against the security state yet win elections. Now, some of you will probably say “See?” but I would just observe that while those anecdotes have accumulated they haven’t had an effect higher up. So what excuse do the rest have?
2) The IOZ theory: Most of the ones in positions of power are part of the con. They know that there are voters who oppose the security state, and they want to make sure that those voters don’t go off and do anything rash like elect an actual opposition. So they use their positions and their media ties and their fundraising prowess to maintain a party apparatus that is too powerful to be displaced but just benign-looking enough (on the surface) to keep all of those well-meaning opposition voters in their places.
Sure, now and then some actual opposition types might get elected on the ticket of that party. As long as it doesn’t happen too often it’s not a bug, it’s a feature: It gives the lie enough credibility to keep lots of well-meaning voters in the camp. A few of those genuine opposition types might even stay mostly pure (The Dodd abides, and thereby gives the party a veneer of true opposition) but most will be seduced. Or, if not seduced, they’ll at least play by the rules of the game because they think that if they just get enough power then they can set it all right…if they can just first get this thing through committee…and there’s a deal they’ll have to strike….and they need to keep this one guy happy so he doesn’t vote against…but dammit, one of these days, they’re going to do something!
Comment by moocat —
July 11, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Well, first, Bruce rules and is a very good photographer. If it’s, you know, THAT Bruce.
Anyone who would vote for Bob Barr (or any other person who voted for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act) does not get invited to my wedding.
Obama’s FISA support really surprised and saddened me, but unlike with other politicians, there’s something about him that makes me implicitly TRUST him, that wants direly to believe, there must be something more to this that I’m missing. That being said, I joined the 23,000 Obama contributors on mybarackobama.com urging him to vote NO on telecom immunity in FISA. And individually (not through that group) I stated the (siginificant) amount of money that I had previously contributed to him and communicated that his FISA vote would at the very least make me… uncomfortable when thinking about contributing more.
But I’m just one of 1.7 million others who may or may not feel the same. That’s probably a good thing.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
In fewer years than you might like to imagine, people will be saying precisely the same thing about ours.
.
I remember people saying that in the eighties, too. It might happen. It might not.
.
What part of the model doesn’t fit?
.
A few points:
.
1. My actual quibble regarded the difference in effect of a Stalin, a Khrushchev, or a Gorbachev. It may be true that no leader would have saved the USSR from demise, nor slowed that demise. But the way an empire dies matters. It remains extraordinary to me that there was so little violence when it finally fell.
.
2. Things do get better. I wanted to say that if ever there was a con that everyone in power was in on, it was the con on the status of African Americans. But that’s not quite right: that population is relatively small. The biggest con would have to have been the one about the status of women. And yet, some thirty years after the Second Wave, and forty years after the Civil Rights Act, we get this year’s Democratic primary. Keep hope alive and don’t cut off anyone’s nuts.
.
3. Coalitions matter, and politicians respond to them, if not immediately , then over the course of several elections. We’ve seen that with the change in the Republican party, which is now, impossibly, the party of the South. The mistake is in worrying about “the American people” or “the big con.” There are a lot of cons out there, not just one, and with a different set on offer, you might get a different coalition that would be better on civil liberties.
.
4. Woo Obama, even if he is behaving like a little shit.
Comment by Hal —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Thoreau,
I’ll let you in on a little secret: we know you’re a single issue voter. It’s okay, as there’s lots of them out there whether it be taxes, the war in Iraq, health care, women’s rights, abortion… whatever. Worse, we know that you have very, very little in common with democrats besides this one issue of civil liberties. In fact, one might guess that you’re pretty much in the opposite camp when it comes to the democratic party platform. That’s okay. Plenty of people are like that. Most of them are republicans, but a few are libertarians as well.
So, when you find that your single issue that means everything to you has been thrown under the bus by the presidential candidate in the name of political expediency, it’s literally no surprise that you’ve reacted in the way you have. It’s also no surprise that you’ve taken a hard line – much like any other single interest voter – and have completely dug your heels in and refuse to vote for him.
Luckily, there’s only a few libertarians about, and there’s always Bob Barr for y’all to vote for. Or don’t vote at all. It makes no difference because you’re not going to vote for Obama anyway.
Again, all well and good.
But if McCain wins in November, I would really, really appreciate it if y’all who are up on your high horse – or those with the black berets and strong black coffee in the beat house with IOZ – would really hold back on the whining during his regime. You’ll be the equivalent of the Nader voters in 2000 and you’ll have precious little moral authority to do so. I’m sure it won’t stop you any way, but at least have the stones to live with your righteous decision and the consequences it implies.
If you’re so hard over on principle that you’re not going to vote for Obama because of this, then accept all that this decision implies. Don’t blame anyone but yourself for the consequences. Be a real man and accept the path.
Or just whine, bitch and moan as most libertarians seem to do anyway, pining away in political impotence, drinking the coffee, chain smoking and losing yourself in the role playing games while bitching about how if Obama had made the right decision, McCain wouldn’t have been elected.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Hal,
So, if McCain wins, and if Reid and Pelosi bend over backwards for him, explain why I shouldn’t be pissed off at the Congressional Dems who installed these “leaders”?
Also, thank you for admitting that my issue was thrown under the bus in the name of political expediency. It clarifies the situation.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
BTW, I probably wouldn’t be a single issue voter if we weren’t in a situation where habeas corpus and torture were subjects of debate.
I wasn’t always a single-issue voter, and when I wasn’t a single-issue voter I considered the Democrats the lesser evil. Then we got to this crisis point, and I became a single-issue voters, and I naively thought that the Democrats would have the character to oppose torture, warrantless wiretaps, and detention without trial.
Comment by Curmudgeon —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Once a country goes over the brink by revoking habeas in law or fact, accepting electoral fraud, and abandoning any pretext of the rule of law by government, it is extremely hard (if not impossible) to return to the norms of civilized behavior. Expecting one leader to turn back the clock on thirty years of increasingly illiberal (liberal in the sense of Locke, Mill and Hayek) to substantially alter the downward course of government is hugely naive. After thirty years of illiberal government, anyone close enough to the core of the power structure to have a shot at leadership will be so heavily enmeshed in the thinking of the illiberal elite that the concept of reversing course will be beyond their grasp.
In short, Americans are screwed unless they have a revolution. They could have recovered the situation if the people behind Iran-Contra had been put in prison, but by now the landslide has is well under way and it’s too late for the pebbles to vote to stay on the hill.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
What Curmudgeon said: This thing is on autopilot, and I see no need to support somebody who is going to do anything other than hit the “eject” button.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Hal, makes an excellent point.
When Barack Obama breaks his promise to stand up for extremely fundamental liberties – I like to call it “the Fourth Amendment” – the only reasonable response is to belittle the people who give a shit. Especially one should lord over them the fact that you and your buddies can get along just fine withOUT the smelly weirdos who do care. THEN, having set out tasty tasty vinegar for all those single-issue flies, you can hold the people to whom it matters that Barack Obama broke his promise to stand up for the Fourth Amendment in this one way responsible for anything bad that happens if, somehow the Warlock of Chicago fails to become President.
Thoreau, the message is clear: You suck shit and we need your vote. Moreso: You suck shit and we deserve your vote. Crapface. THAT’S WHAT MAKES THIS A COALITION!
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Jim-
If I get into the coalition, do you think they’ll stop hitting me? They seem so sweet when they aren’t drunk.
I’m sure this will work out so much better than that decades-long coalition we libertarians made with the Republicans. They sweet-talked us for decades and assured us that if they ever got solid control over all 3 branches they’d reduce the power of the state. It didn’t work out so well, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t work out next time.
Count me in.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
’m sure this will work out so much better than that decades-long coalition we libertarians made with the Republicans…It didn’t work out so well, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t work out next time.
I wonder if there was any obvious overlap between the Democratic coalition prior to 1980 and the Republican coalition afterward.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Um, no?
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Um, no?
Maybe I’m interpreting the electoral maps on wiki incorrectly, but it looks like the South is the coalition partner whom your concern trails from one party to the other.
Comment by Hal —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Wow Jim, you must be real fun at parties.
Look, did Obama get us into this fuck fest? No. You expect him to get you out, he doesn’t. Okay, I’m pissed too. But wtf?
And what’s up with your inference that I was claiming we “don’t need your vote anyway”. Geebus, what a childish reaction you have. My point was that he wasn’t going to vote for Obama anyway so he should accept the consequences of that action. No where did I even imply that we don’t need his and everyone else’s vote we can get. It’s just your childish, knee jerk reaction to pretty much anything liberal it seems that leads you to throw mud back in my face – thanks for putting words in my mouth.
In any event, it’s pretty clear Jim, et. al. that you don’t support anything else in the democratic platform – I mean, what with the libertarian critique of government that you hold close to your chest and all, it would be surprising to find anything at all you agree with wrt the democrats. And it’s pretty clear from the reaction that yes, you are a single issue voter. As I said, that’s pretty much par for the course here in the USA, so I don’t find it that surprising.
But there’s little that we, as democrats, are going to do to persuade a single issue voter, such as yourselves, to convince you because the single issue has been thrown under the bus and there isn’t a chance in hell you care anything else regarding the platform.
Still, you might just want to lighten up on the f’ing snark you liberally dose out. Especially when you’re snarking over a position I didn’t even take.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Tim, as Hamlet said, more matter and less art. What the hell are you trying to say here? The archness is confounding.
Comment by julian —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Wow, great thread, and not sure if anyone is still reading it, but I want to say here that it wasn’t Hamlet, it was Gertrude.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Hal, if you think there was no belittlement in your post to Thoreau, you should rethink. If you think that FISA, habeas, torture and aggressive war are a “single issue,” fine, but “it” is the most crucial moral issues facing the country. As Katherine, no libertarian, said, the problems with Obama’s FISA flip-flop include the fact that we can’t trust his promises on the whole cluster of issues touching the national security state now. The problem is not Thoreau here, and the problem is not me. The problem is, first, what Obama did, and – to a much, much lesser extent – the people trying to minimize what Obama did.
It might help to explain the stakes as I see them. The Bush administration hasn’t just been a collection of bad actors. They’ve been a collection of bad actors who fashioned themselves a set of very nasty executive-branch tools out of their own meanness and lack of shame. Official Democrats are not as bad as these people. They aren’t necessarily great, but they’re, in terms of their actions in power, the lesser of two evils.
But that’s not enough. George W. Bush is not going to be the last Republican President. There might be one this election; there might be one in 2012. By 2020, you can be damn sure we’ll have had at least one GOP administration. If the Bush Admin tools are still lying around when that happens, we are fucked, and so are a lot of other people around the world.. The only way to have forestalled that is for the Democrats to have used their power – control of Congress the last two years, possible control of the White House starting next fall – to trash those tools. To repudiate the structure of the Unitary-Executive, GWOT-era national-security state. The way to do that would have been to visit real consequences – political; legal; professional – on the toolmakers. This is the opportunity the Dems have pointedly not been taking. The result will be that we may get a vacation from Bushism for a few years, but at best it will be a respite. Because even if Obama and the Dems forebear to use the Bushist apparatus (much), their successors won’t.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
I hate it when that happens!
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
Save for gun rights, Southern conservatives are a barrier to expansive notions of civil liberties. Obama–NASCAR car notwithstanding–isn’t going to win in the South. The fact that he can’t win there is the reason to vote for him. If he wins, the coalition he puts together will survive him, whatever he does. And that will be the coalition the Democrats pay attention to for Presidential elections in the future.
I don’t know if a coalition that isn’t oriented toward the South would be better on civil liberties, but I suspect it would be. And it would be nice to find out.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Tim, I think there are still several good reasons to vote for Obama, especially if one is voting in a battleground state. The non-confederate coalition is surely one of them. In addition to civil liberties problems, the South is the most militarist region of the country too.
What’s more, I think it’s a mistake to decide that “liberaltarianism” or whatever stands or falls with Barack Obama. In my review of Yglesias’ book, currently somewhere in reason’s editing process, I declare that the “netroots” as such are the first vibrant anti-war constituency either party has had since the 1970s. A lot of rootsers have clearly been dismayed at the FISA bill itself and Obama’s cave-in specifically. That’s to their credit. There are other politicians and other avenues for change than electoral politics.
But, yeah, the idea behind a coalition is that constituencies get something important to them. Hal has to be the only UO regular not to notice how far to the left I’ve moved economically over the years, but still, the civil liberties issues are my core concerns. I’d never think of apologizing for that or backing down.
Comment by Hal —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Hal, if you think there was no belittlement in your post to Thoreau, you should rethink
Again Jim, you really need to read. Of course there’s belittlement. What there isn’t and what you threw mud over was a contention that “we don’t need your vote”.
Geebus.
If you think that FISA, habeas, torture and aggressive war are a “single issue,†fine, but “it†is the most crucial moral issues facing the country.
Jim, again I can’t imagine you’re actually reading here. I think you are a single issue voter. That single issue is straight libertarian style civil liberties. Again, please read what I’m saying.
we can’t trust his promises on the whole cluster of issues touching the national security state now.
Great. I understand that’s what you think. I, strangely, actually agree with you. I’ve written Obama faxes (not emails, as they actually pay attention to physical stuff) stating so. But guess what? I also care about a whole host of other things. And even if he bends on the FISA issue, I am pretty sure that he’ll be better about it than McCain. Oh well, I’m a shallow liberal because I don’t care enough about it to stomp my foot, throw a hissy fit and sulk.
Again, and let me be crystal clear. I agree with your points. I just happen to believe that if you’re not going to vote for Obama over this, then please – for dear gods sake, please – just accept the consequences of your actions. If you really don’t believe there’s no difference between the dems and the republicans, then that’s your decision. Great. Have at it. But my original point was that you should at least have the stones to accept what follows from your hissy fit.
I know you think it’s the end of the world. The entire libertarian tradition has been one of stomping the collective foot and throwing a huge hissy fit because no one agrees with you and we still somehow manage to scrape along. It’s a dismal world view, imho, which is why I belittle Thoreau when he throws a tantrum and starts wailing on people who simply don’t see things the same way as he does.
Again, Obama didn’t get us into this mess and you’re complaining that he isn’t the savior you need to get us out of this. That’s the problem I had with all this in the first place. But let’s just thank all the Naderites and the Supreme Court for that. If you’re willing to do the same as they did in 2000, then I pretty much think you’ll be in much the same moral stew as they were.
Comment by Hal —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Hal has to be the only UO regular not to notice how far to the left I’ve moved economically over the years
You’re right. I haven’t really noticed it. But one is infinitely greater than zero, so it might be a huge shift to you being a relative thing.
Perhaps you can take some time and post about it and explain it for me, rather than just relying on me to gleen it from your various posts and commentary over the years. I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear about it and it would definitely be interesting…
Again, just a request. I know there’s a lot to post about…
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
What’s more, I think it’s a mistake to decide that “liberaltarianism†or whatever stands or falls with Barack Obama.
Agreed. But support for Barack Obama might stand or fall with Barack Obama. Moreover, there’s a difference between reluctance to support leftish/allegedly-leftish politicians and a reluctance to seek common ground with folks who happen to be liberal. I think our liberal commenters are good people, but that good will towards commenters doesn’t mean I’ll vote for or endorse a Democratic candidate who isn’t willing to adhere to certain basic stances on civil liberties.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
July 12, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Though I’m a lesser of two evils voter these days, I have no sympathy for “be a real man” Hal’s post 41. Taking responsibility cuts several different ways and when people like me vote for Democrats despite their awful stances on some issues, we’re telling them they can ignore our opinions on those issues and they can do what they want, so long as they are at least a little better than the Republicans.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 12, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Now you’re just talking crazy.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 12, 2008 @ 1:02 am
But, yeah, the idea behind a coalition is that constituencies get something important to them.
I think what’s at issue is why the constituencies get something. Sometimes it’s because a constituency pushes, and some of the worst abuses may have to be addressed that way. But sometimes it’s because, across the constituencies within the coalition, there is broad support without attention and no real opposition. A certain policy will simply be in the style of a coalition. So Obama will have some goo-goo policy–his govt. transparency policy, which I don’t remember anyone pushing hard for–because it seems like a good idea to someone from that group.
To me, the best protection of civil liberties is to first develop and bind together a coalition for whom broad civil liberties are natural. And that, I hope, Obama might start.
Put another way, you worry about the tools left behind, but I think that the best protection against use of such tools is a broad swath of people who will be instinctively angered, or even just irritated, by encroachments. But that coalition has to be built, and I’m willing to give the Dems some room while that coalition is being built.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 12, 2008 @ 6:36 am
I do, actually, think there are some thing that matter a lot and are in Obama’s favor, and I sum them up under heading of “preparedness”.
He’s one of the few Senators to take avian flu seriously, and has sponsored legislation to increase research funding and to pay for stockpiles of vaccine. That could save up to millions of lives, in a crisis situation. (Tens or hundreds of thousands, more likely, but even so.)
Ever since Katrina, he’s also been one of the few Senators pushing to require FEMA to require that cities and states have evacuation plans for the disasters they’re likely to face that include explicit provision for evacuating people who don’t have their own transportation or need other kinds of assistance. That’s a “right where you are now” issue for me, since if (for instance) there were a major North Pacific tsunami or Mt. Rainier became active, I would need assistance evacuating.
And it goes like that. There are a whole lot of administrative issues that he seems really good on. I would prefer to get them with some peace and justice, of course, but that doesn’t make them bad in themselves, and I think they’re worth considering.
Comment by Monte Davis —
July 12, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I wish I lived on the planet where many of these posts seem to originate — where the 2006 elections brought the entire MoveOn slate into Congress with a veto-proof majority, and therefore Pelosi and Reid can be slated every day for not making more of their dominance.
Here on boring Sol III, after the “GOP got its comeuppance” cheering stopped, they had a narrow margin including too many Democrats who might as well be Lieberman on GWoT issues.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 12, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Monte, Hal tells me it’s a mark of sophistication to excuse bad behavior on civil liberties by prominent Democratic politicians, and I am trying to take that to heart. Still, Thoreau makes the crucial point in another thread: in many cases, all the Dems had to do was nothing. NOBODY was loudly demanding that Dems bring forth a FISA bill with telecom immunity in June-July. (Nobody who is not a large campaign contributor from that sector anyway.) It’s the very gratuitousness of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer – and Obama – here that rankles.
And you people know this. Back in the Spring, you did a laudable job of mounting public pressure against telecom immunity and you stopped it. It was a genuinely great achievement in mass political organizing and grassroots pressure. It made me proud to be allied with you all.
Now the leadership of your party has chumped you. They made a considered decision to bide their time until you were distracted by other things. They cut a deal with your enemies in secret. They sprang this on you in surprise, in absolute contravention of your clear demands of a mere two months prior. You, who are the people who turned the fortunes of their party around for them, the people who stood up for the Democratic Party when its officials wouldn’t even stand up for themselves.
What they have done is a far more blatant show of disrespect to you than anything you’re going to read on this website. You’re making excuses for people who have treated you with contempt.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 12, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Monte, when Jim says “You’re making excuses for people who have treated you with contempt.” he’s completely right.
In addition to all the points he makes, which I agree with 100%, consider all the other things Congress isn’t doing but good. Investigations don’t require veto-proof majorities; by and large, if a committee chair wants an investigation to happen, it will. Furthermore, Reid is letting Republican Senators place “holds” so that an individual can effectively table a measure, while refusing to honor ones from Democrats like Dodd. That isn’t the fault of a less-than-veto-proof majority. Nor is Democratic cooperation with the Republicans in pushing through legislation nobody’s had a chance to read: scheduling is almost entirely in the hands of majority leaders and their appointees, and if Pelosi and Reid decided that no legislation would pass without at least 5 business days for external review, nobody could say boo about it.
And even on matters that are susceptible to undermining if they’re tried with less than a veto-proof majority, the Democratic leadership isn’t even trying. The Republicans very seldom let the prospect of failure stop them – they’ve spent all my adult life, in fact, often campaigning with the theme of “we tried this worthy thing X and those nasty Democrats sabotaged it, so if you want to see our best effort win next time, vote for us”. It’s not like it’s a secret, they put it in their ads and everything. The Democrats could have rolled into 2008 election season with a long list of attempted measures foiled by a bigoted few and looked a lot better.
*sigh*
Comment by Tom —
July 12, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Hal,
I guess I’m one of those terrible libertarians you complain about. Here in Ohio, during the 2006 election, I voted for Sherrod Brown, the Democrat, in the 2006 election because he opposed the war and favored preserving civil liberties. There were a lot of positions he took that I didn’t like, but those two issues were crucial for me. And you know what? He has consistently opposed the war, and he voted against the FISA bill. I don’t expect Sen. Brown to become a libertarian anytime soon, but he has kept faith on the issues that are important to me. If you expect libertarians to line up to vote for Obama, why is it too much to ask that he keep his word on the issues that matter to us?
Moocat, of course you should invite anyone you want to your wedding, but you should know that any hard core libertarian who supports Barr agrees with you about marriage rights. I can assure you libertarians supported gay rights before it was a cool position in the population generally.
Comment by Hal —
July 12, 2008 @ 11:52 am
I guess I’m one of those terrible libertarians you complain about.
It’s funny that you can’t seem to read, though. There’s a difference between my belittling Dr. T and libertarians in general for acting like beat poets and/or bong smoking college sophomores when Dr. T does the same and paints Snidley Whiplash mustaches on all Obama supporting liberals and the point I was making that if you’re going to vote on this single issue then you better damn well have the stones to accept the consequences.
Really, my only request is that y’all stop whining and beating your chest in pain if McCain wins. Other than that, I have no real complaint. It’s simply that you’ll try to have it both ways like pretty much every Naderite I’ve ever listened to.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Exactly. I’m not looking for ANYTHING to be overturned. If the Dems had tried one or two good bills and gotten vetoed or filibustered or Liebermaned, I wouldn’t be complaining. The problem is that they passed bad bills. In some cases the number of pro-Stasi Senators was way too large to be “just a few bad apples”, i.e. we aren’t talking 51-49 here. In other cases, Reid and Pelosi refused to use procedure-fu, or they honored GOP holds while ignoring The Dodd’s holds (The Dodd abides). There’s a history here which shows that the institution itself is corrupt, it isn’t just one or two bad apples giving an effective 51-49 GOP majority.
If the institution is corrupt, you have to wonder if most of them aren’t just part of the con, as IOZ holds. If Obama joins with them on a bill where he had nothing to lose from doing the right thing, how are we to interpret this as anything other than him being part of the con?
If Obama had been polling well behind McCain, and he got attack ads in swing states regarding wiretaps and national security, I could see why he capitulated. Not sure I’d be willing to vote for him (a broken man is still a broken man, and if you put that broken man in power you know who he’ll break for) but I could at least see why he did it. But this was an issue that wasn’t getting any traction for the right. To the extent that there was any popular appeal, it was coming from the left…and he screwed us.
Comment by Katherine —
July 12, 2008 @ 11:57 am
” Investigations don’t require veto-proof majorities; by and large, if a committee chair wants an investigation to happen, it will.”
BTW, in the credit-where-due file: there seems to have been a serious Levin-led investigation on torture going on for some time now. For a long time it was just some quiet, behind the scenes staff work–which goes entirely under the raidar but is often the most effective way of finding stuff out. There’ve been some hearings too recently. We could learn new, important stuff from the final report, though I’m pretty sure it will NOT get adequate press coverage.
Comment by Katherine —
July 12, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
“don’t expect Sen. Brown to become a libertarian anytime soon, but he has kept faith on the issues that are important to me”
Sherrod Brown actually voted for the Military Commissions Act during the run-up to the 2006 election; from my point of view, a far worse betrayal than Obama on FISA, and one that might have sorely tempted me to write in a name in November. It was a closer vote, too. I still think you voted the right way; I think Brown is a genuine liberal, that the MCA vote was the usual Washington calculation & he has enough sense to realize that he now has the better part of a six year term to vote his conscience without any serious risk to his seat. A politician can make really horrendous votes from time to time, and especially in election years, & be useful on other occasions–The Dodd voted for the Iraq War use of force resolution, for instance.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 12, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
The Dodd is abiding on a road that leads to Damascus.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 12, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
And, for the record, although I have been pretty over the top in my praise of The Dodd, I don’t actually consider him a quasi-religious figure. I suspect that if I took a close enough look I’d find all sorts of reasons to hate him. But looking at the leadership he shows here and now on the most urgent items of the present makes it easier to forgive the mistakes of 2002.
The Obama of 2002 was a better man than the Obama of 2008. The Dodd of 2008 is a better man than the Dodd of 2002.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 12, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Katherine, that’s good news about Levin. Thanks.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 13, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Of course, if McCain won, in 2012 you’d be going on about how libertarians didn’t criticize him during his administration. You probably would even if they did; it’s the normal pattern.
Funnily, I’ve had vaguely Reddish say the same thing to me…except that us libertarians should shut up about Obama if he wins. What’s important to remember about the smug partisans who don’t mind ruining this country as long as their Team is in power that there’s twice as many of them as most folks want to admit.
Basic civil liberties as a “single issue”. What a piece of work.
Comment by Barry —
July 15, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Thoreau: “On the Supreme Court: Sorry, but both parties hold far too many voters hostage with “Vote for me or [circle one: more babies will die, women will resort to coat-hangers].†I refuse to play that game.”
Uncle Kvetch: “I have no idea what that means. ”
It means that Thoreau has been working hard on his dissertation, learning to teach, and starting his post-Ph.D. research, and hasn’t had the time or energy to know the many 5-4 votes we’ve had.
It’ll be a cold day in h*ll when Obama nominates somebody within a long, long way of being as bad as the best of McCain’s appointees. And, as we’ve seen, the SCOTUS matters. Bush vs. Gore was decided on a 5-4 vote; the Gitmo case was a 5-4 vote. And that’s just (a) the cases I can recall, and (b) the SCOTUS, as opposed to misc. federal judges. In addition, the obvious less from Bush vs. Gore was that five justices really wanted a GOP presidency enough to make themseleves clear partisan hacks among honest lawyers, and it didn’t matter. In fact, with Alito and Roberts, the GOP got two additional hard-core right-wingers.
Comment by IOZ —
“Sympathy for the Hageean-Zionist eschatology: perhaps there’s virtue in hastening the End Times.”
Just like Arthur Silber – alternating intelligent things with clueless anarchist oddities. Must be the black beret and the clove cigaretteds
We already saw that with Nader. He successfully and deliberately tipped the election to the GOP, which gleefully ran with it. They’ve managed to f*ck things up impressively, to the point where the more paranoid far-left was accurate. In fact, they’ve f*cked things up to the point where 2008 will likely be an Obama and Congressional blow-out, especially as a lot of financial elites might now feel that Obama the Repairman is infinitely preferable to John “You ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” McCain, otherwise known as Bush’s less competant stepbrother (when he’s not known as Cheney’s less-sane stepbrother).
And still it’s been a profitable 8 years.
Things can get very, very, very, very, bad before they get worse.
Another: “Remember, elections aren’t just about the persons. They’re about parties[.]â€
IOZ: “True dat, but the obvious extension of this perfectly reasonable observation is that empires aren’t about parties any more than parties are about individual personalities. What impels the United States to imperial adventures and aggressive war (not to mention a host of lesser evils) is structural and systemic.”
True. And having a party which is not deeply rooted in pushing such tendancies is better than the alternative.
“Gorbachev was a damn sight better than Khrushchev, who was light-years in the direction of the Good from Uncle Joe, but neither relative nor actual goodness was sufficient to alter or forestall their empire’s inevitable expansion, peak, decline, and demise.”
Which is assuming that the USA will follow a path that’s anywhere near similar. For the most obvious reason that the USA doesn’t have an economically stronger competing power (as of yet). Even the emergence of an economically equal partner will probably take decades. And the USSR was militarily a mixed bag – it possessed a strong Army which had a limited range, a weak navy and a so-so air force. Getting a competing power to even that level will take decades. And if the USA is able to continue to invest in new military technologies at even a mediocre rate, that could stretch out that period more decades. The USA is still an attractive site for much investment; the USSR had to take from its colonies.
It could well be a limited run, when viewed from a century or several in the future, but then so was the USSR’s run.
Comment by Whammer —
“The next question is what are the consequences? Do we go the way of the UK, or do we thrash about wildly and do something really stupid? Even more stupid, I should say….. ”
Imagine being in the USSR in the mid-80’s, and having a choice between Gorbachev (the reformer) and Ivan ‘Hard-Line Great Patriotic War Vet’ Hardlinerovitch. Assume that you didn’t know the future, and figured that Gorbachev was just a moderate and a reformer.
It’d still be an easy choice…….