perfidy

Via Winds of Change comes this post on Fearful Symmetry (permanent link broken: visit main page and scroll down to 5/31). It's an attempt to categorize the various types of Leftism in America, breaking the Left down into four movements: Intellectuals, Social Democrats/Liberals, Bureaucrats, and Democrats. 

He focuses exclusively on foreign policy, but I think the larger analysis holds, at least in a cafeteria discussion. There are some points to disagree with (strongly, depending on who you are), but an interesting article nonetheless, and quite germane to our recent discussion about whether the Left is Anti-American. His closing line: "Perhaps the left and right can come to some accommodation in this regard. If leftists won't claim that the editors of Southern Partisan speak on my behalf, then I won't claim that Noam Chomsky speaks for them. Is it a deal?" 

It's a deal.
 

Correct. The masses never got behind a global class war/revolution, or even in Imperial Russia. The Marxist prophecy never materialized. It didn't happen. Marx prophesied that the vanguard of the proletariat would initiate the class war and the rest of the proletariat would quickly follow. That did not occur. As far as I know, Jesus hasn't shown up again either. The Marxist prophecy will never happen because the world changed significantly after the mid-nineteenth century, and no, the workers never got behind it, nor will they ever.

The United States does have a class system, but as you indicated it is what the sociologists call an open stratification system. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day so the sociology folks were bound to get something right thanks to law of averages. But still. Just because mobility is possible between classes it does not mean the classes do not exist. They are fluid, but they are there. Upward and downward mobility is possible, people can go from working to middle to upper and back down to working again. But at every step, there is a step. A permanent social structure is called a caste system. That's when the social ladder is entirely hereditary and is also known as a closed stratification system where no mobility is possible.

In the United States, classes are based entirely upon wealth and education. There is no hereditary aristocracy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a class structure. See, in Britain and much of Europe, with the industrial revolution, the hereditary aristocracy constituted the upper class, non-titled wealthy and well-to-do educated professionals, shopkeepers, etc. constituted the middle, urban and rural workers the working class. With the industrial revolution, Britain and Europe moved from a caste to a class social structure when mobility became possible between the working and middle classes. Not guaranteed, no, but possible. Hell, some people in the middle class even bought themselves a title to move into the aristocracy. Thus, it is mobility that distinguishes a class from a caste structure, and the United States holds the possiblity fo mobility, be it upward or downward. My terminology in describing the United States as a nation with a class structure was correct.

When the vaguard of the proletariat is doing the fighting? The masses don't seem very interested. And, what is this class structure you speak of? We have a capitalist economy, true (yea capitalism!) but there are no permanent classes. The vast majority of millionaires in this country are nouveau riche, from working or middle class families, not from the already rich. My grandfather's family was dirt poor, he hunted squirrels to put meat on the table, and was a hobo in the thirties. But he went into real estate, got reasonably rich, and retired to a brick Georgian mansion in Guernsey county, Ohio. His wife's father was a union organizer, worked with the commie John L. Lewis. Most of the poor in this country (lowest quintile of earnings) are not poor ten years later. Poverty in this country is more a matter of timing than anything else. I was poor, now I'm not. I hope to be rich. I am not the member of any permanent class. Nor is anyone else. We have no landed aristocracy, or hereditary rulers. Anyone can become rich, or president.

Have to hate America, or at least agitate for its overthrow?

Buckethead, dude, I think he's got you on Thatcher. Whatta beast.

Mike is correct in pointing out that all heroes have feet of clay, but I'm gonna poke, poke, poke, at the hornets' nest by claiming that Reagan and Thatcher won the cold war exactly because they forced the USSR to stop, think, check their wallets, and put the brakes to what Stalin had set rolling. Also, it doesn't hurt that Gorbachev was a second-generation Party member, the first Premier without direct ties to the Revolution.

But let's not bicker and argue about who killed who! I still want to know how Mike resolves Marxist orthodoxy with an evident love of the United States and its ways, and what sages Buckethead is consulting to assert that tax cuts dependably spur the economy (you're not allowed to mention Larry Kudlow).

On that last point, I'm not sure that an extra $4.50 in people's pockets is particularly meaningful for the economy, except for convenience stores, pizza shops and breweries. I'd like to think that the Average American does think of tax cuts as something they can count on, but I'm not so sure. That presupposes that the Average American acts rationally in economic matters, and I have always found that assumption laughable.

Finally, the discussion of the current tax cuts has to eventually come around to the question of massive deficit spending. Where's the wall, how fast are we going, and how long til we hit it? There's a war on, you know.

I thought of something smart to say, and it's pithy, too!

Liberals are sanctimonious, and conservatives are condescending.

Too bad for both of 'em, I say.

[moreover] Present company excepted, needless to say. I'm thinking of Chomsky, Moore, Coulter, and O'Reilly, among many others.

Buckethead, there are two points I will concede, IE your promotion of debate, and knowing a lefty to see one, but others I will concede partially, or not at all. I'm not convinced that racism has been reduced quite to the extent that you argue. Anecdotally, the example of the people you work with would indicate a reduction, and it does. But what is the overall and broad extent to which racism has been reduced? Difficult to tell, and I will gladly admit that I don't know the answer. So, point partially conceded. Next, calling for a million Mogadishus and the deaths of American soldiers might very well indicate a hatred for America, or it can be an exaggeration device to oppose the war in the most brutal and shocking terms possible. It could be shock value. While I do not advocate the death of anyone, as I said before, others did say that, and maybe it's out of hatred for America. Point partially conceded. 

As to Reagan and Thatcher winning the Cold War, this is inflammatory and I'm indulging myself, but I'll write it anyway. Big Fucking Deal. What do they want, medals? I won a bunch of schoolyard fights during my adolescence and I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I lost a couple, too, but we won't talk about that. 

Finally, do I hate America? No. There are many things to like about America at the present time. Unlike most European countries, Britain, and Ireland, we have bars open until four, at least in Chicago and Peoria, IL, and elsewhere I'm sure. I haven't been compelled to serve in the military, auto fuel is cheap (compared to Europe/Britain/Ireland), I can vote, the grocery stores have lots of good stuff to eat, I can participate in cultural activities related to both my ethnic groups as opposed to just one, and the list goes on. Are there things I don't like about America? Why, yes. Yes, there are. But back to things I like, and to tie it all together, here's a final question. Do I believe in the necessity of revolution in the United States? No. The system of which you are so fond makes it possible to solve problems constitutionally rather than violent means. It favors the wealthy over the poor in many cases (a thing I don't like), it's slow, and it takes a long time, but patience is a virtue I possess. Otherwise, I couldn't be an effective teacher. Violent revolution would be looking for the quick fix, but there are no quick fixes or easy solutions to societal problems. Another point partially conceded to the Buckethead. 

So there you have it. As my own little post-script, was the American Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? It was. People in the Union could pay money to the government, or hire substitutes to serve in their stead. All the bullshit the postmodernist historians have been spouting lately about how that really wasn't the case, well, hazut! That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years. But I'll veer away from the conspiratorial rant. In the Confederacy, poor men from the backcountry served in the infantry to preserve the Confederacy, slavery, and the state's rights backdoor to the preservation of slavery for the benefit of large plantation owners who were rich, while women on the home front starved. In both cases, poor men died to do the will of wealthy, powerful men.

Many Democrats seem to be hoping that the economy tanks, or at the very least fails to improve, in order that they may regain power. That hope may be misplaced, in addition to being reprehensible. When the Iraqi oil fields come back on line in the next couple weeks, I think that they will be running full tilt. All the money will go into the Iraqi college fund, or whatever they're calling it. But the real benefit will be plummeting oil prices, and sticking a knife in OPEC. If Iraqi oil production maxes out, oil prices will be sub $20/barrel in a matter or weeks. This will be a massive shot in the arm for the American (and world) economy, equivalent to a tax cut much bigger than the one we actually got. Between the low oil prices, and the tax cut, I think we will see real improvement.

I do not support, as a rhetorical device, the shouting down of one's opponents and describing what they think without asking them. I am all about reasoned discourse. When I hear people on the left whining of the perfidy of American aims and actions; ascribing almost every conceivable ill in the world to American behavior (global warming, poverty, species extinction, you name it); and attacking American institutions as racist, bigoted, and generally inherently oppressive; these things make me consider the possibility that they really don't like America, and what it stands for. I can provide examples of all of these things. Noam Chomsky embodies all of them, and is apparently well respected on the left. 

Saying that the left "hates America" is certainly a broad brush. But there is a large element of truth to it, and it is for some conservatives a convenient shorthand to describe behavior that they see in the left. I do not have to take polls to notice these things in the media, in the words of actual leftists. When I fail to see other leftists castigating them, I presume that these beliefs are commonly held. While the left is no more unitary than the right, there is a core of beliefs that are generally held by most people on the left. And just as with conservatives, leftists are self-identified. When I hear some one describing himself as a liberal, or leftist, I take them at their word. Mike, don't pretend that this isn't the case. "What left?" We both know what it is. 

I do not believe that saying there are significant injustices in America means that the speaker is un-American, or hates America. I have said this myself. But where does that statement lead? Do you condemn the institutions of our nation, and advocate their replacement entire through revolution? Or do you think that reform of our oppressive society is impossible? Do you think that things are as bad as they have ever been? These seem to be typical attitudes on the left. What solutions do you propose for these problems - do you propose more liberty, or less? More state control, or less? More personal responsibility or less? Do you ascribe blame to groups or individuals? Do you believe more in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? What follows the first question indicates what the speaker thinks of America. 

When I see the left, embodied in the Stalinist group International ANSWER, (but certainly represented elsewhere) protesting the war - making the most outrageous claims about America, and openly supporting a murderous thug over our liberal, tolerant nation, I am outraged. When leftists openly wish for a thousand Mogadishus, and for the death of American soldiers, I begin to think that the speakers hate America. We have found mass graves with thousands of victims in Iraq, but we were evil to remove Saddam's regime? Supporting the enemies of America must mean that you don't care too much for America. 

So, why don't we take a poll? Mike, you're a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Do you hate America? I know that you hold socialist beliefs that are completely at odds with the ideals of the founding fathers. No problem. Part of my belief structure insists that I accept that. I oppose it, but I do not deny your right to hold those beliefs. But do you think that revolution is necessary here, as Marxist orthodoxy would insist it is? I never got the sense that you hated America, even if you have rather more issues with things as they are than I do. 

For many of your fellow leftists, it goes further. I see contempt for everything that America stands for, for patriotism, and for the choices of actual individual Americans, when they disagree with leftists. Calling Michael Moore a liar is not name calling, because he is. Saying that Noam Chomsky hates America is not name calling, because it's true. Saying that I think someone's entire political belief structure is inimical to the ideals and history of our nation is not necessarily hateful. Sometimes it's just fact. When I see many, many leftists offering the same viewpoints, it is not so unreasonable to say, in general, that the left hates America. It is ridiculous to complain endlessly of "negative campaigning" when what you're complaining about is your opponent pointing out your voting record, or saying he disagrees with you. Negative campaigning is saying your opponent's wife is a whore. 

But as I have said before, on this site and elsewhere, America is unlike every other nation on earth. We were founded on the most perfect set of ideals ever conceived, and we come closer to the realization of those ideals every day. Slavery is gone. Institutional racism is gone. Racism in public discourse is gone. Racism in general is in rapid retreat. This is the progress we have made on one issue. The office I sit in right now has four white men, two black men and a Hispanic woman. Out of seven random people in the tech industry, this sample shows no evidence of the racism that the left insists is still dominant in our culture. 

As a conservative, I am conserving the ideals of the founding fathers. I feel confident enough in my arguments about any issue - taxes, the war, welfare reform, affirmative action, anything - to win debates. And if you convince me, I'll change my mind. I am not dogmatic. But it is the left seems to go out of its way to avoid debate - on college campuses, by invoking racism whenever a conservative questions affirmative action, by calling conservatives "mean-spirited" when they advocate change in welfare or social security, by calling conservatives Hitler, etc. When you have been called a racist, a bigot, a fascist, and worse as much as I have, because I am a conservative, the temptation to rochambeaux my political opponents is strong. Conservatives, with the exception of Anne Coulter, almost universally stipulate the good intentions of their left leaning opponents - while disagreeing with their policy solutions. But the reverse is not the case. 

PS. Reagan (and Thatcher) did win the cold war. And, I don't fear the French, I hate them - very, very different. And was the Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? 

PPS. The Democratic Party will discredit itself. Over the last decade, it has proved that it is a tired dinosaur. The ideas come from the conservative side, and the Democrats define themselves in opposition. The democrats are not as conservative as I am. They do not approve of tax cuts. (by the by, the poor don't pay income taxes, so by definition any tax cut is for the middle and wealthy classes.) Lieberman was the only significant Democrat who supported the war. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. (Johno is both of those categories.) But the parties are different, and have a different outlook on what is best for our nation. Compromise means that the actual policies implemented by either party will be closer to the mean than people like me (or you) would like.

From DailyPundit: Bill Clinton has mentioned that he'd like to see the 22nd Amendment overturned. Well, of course he would. Not that the he's sayin' anything about wanting to be President again, you see, (see the original WaPo article), but, ya know.... 

DailyPundit says what we're all thinking: "Man, what an idiot he is. I thought he was supposed to be a political genius, but all it would take is for the GOP to put this quote on every Congressional and Senatorial fundraiser they send out. If they didn't raise five billion dollars in campaign money overnight to keep BJ from creeping back from the political graveyard, I'd eat my shorts." 

Erm, indeed. The Democratic Party has a whole passel of problems to deal with, but one of the greatest is that Bill Clinton is still the best thing they have going, and he's a sex-addicted pathological liar with a jive so potent even Jesse Jackson takes off his hat in awe. As long as he is still around making all the other Democrats look like even bigger chuckleheads then they are, the Dems are screwed. The worst part for them is that Bill is out for himself alone, and will let the party crumble into ruins around him as long as he remains the Respected Public Figure We All Adore. If they were smart, they'd cut him loose, just disown him, and figure out a way to win without his fat ass dragging them down. But that would be if they were smart. 
 

Recently, I have observed a great deal of rhetoric from various pundits such as those on the Fox News Channel, the Weekly Standard, this little banner above our blog, and other media outlets that profess to be conservative, right of center, what have you, about how "the left hates America." I have some observations and questions in regard to this assertion. 

First, an observation. The aforementioned pundits have a little song with a good beat and you can dance to it. The little song begins with how Reagan won the Cold War. The next line is some sort of attempt at name-calling, IE "I think liberals [MADL] are a bunch of whiners," from Anne Coulter, for example, or Michael Moore is telling lies, from Fox News. The next line has something to do with support for the troops or war is good or something to that effect, and this often comes from people who have never served in the military nor would they allow their children to do so (I believe that it is because American wars are usually, if not always, a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, but this is beside the current point). A recently added line dealt with Francophobia. The new line in this ditty is how "the left hates America."

A second observation. As I have mentioned before, debate in this country typically involves an attempt to shout the other side down and describe what their opponents think without actually consulting them. Buckethead indicated that this rhetorical methodology is acceptable; I believe it is not. But disagreements between the two of us are frequent to say the least. Be that as it may, arguing that "the left hates America" falls into the category I have described in the current paragraph. 

Now for the questions. What is this left of which you (aforementioned pundits) speak? Who is this enigmatic left that you are pointing your fingers at and shouting, "J'accuse!" Oh, pardon me. In their language it is, "I freedom-accuse you!" But still, who are you talking about? At least Fox News singled out Michael Moore to provide something other than a broad stroke. But I can remember my early teen years, when I would describe myself as a leftist, my Dad challenged me to think about what that means. Similarly, I challenge the pundits, who and what are you talking about when you say, "the left?" 

Second question. How do you know this left of which you speak hates America? Have you asked them? Have you polled urban areas, started with a question about their political orientation and then proceeded to ask them what they think? "Do you hate America?" the pollster asks a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Has that been done? Or, do you simply glance at what has been written, taking a statement such as, "There are significant inequities and injustices in American society," and shout, "Freedom-accuse!" Such a statement as that indicates that you hate America!” 

Third question. If this left does indeed hate America, what are you going to do about it? May I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could use this to discredit a political party. But hmmm, what oh what party could that be? Perhaps one that is part of this left? Maybe the SWP? The SDP? The Green party (though I take some issue with their inclusion into a left camp, but others see it that way). No, no, those parties are insignificant. Perhaps you could set your sights on the Democratic Party! Why yes! Never mind the fact that the Democrats are capitalists and just as conservative as you, still in favor of tax cuts for the rich, just at a reduced rate! Never mind the fact that the Democrats didn't oppose the war as much as you made them out to oppose the war, who cares? There are two parties defined by their opposition to each other who really think pretty much the same thing, and this country ain't big enough for the both of them. So go ahead, hurl insults and engage in name-calling to discredit the other party who thinks the same thing as you just has a different lever on election day! Make wild broad stroke accusations about people you haven't even spoken to! So who cares if we're lying or telling the truth! If we say that this one group hates America, we discredit the party that pretends to represent them only really doesn't! 

My last questions. Why do these pundits feel the need to do this sort of thing? It strikes me as dirty pool. Maybe they don't feel confident enough in their arguments or beliefs to win debates solely on the basis of those arguments. Or maybe it's just quicker and easier to throw sand in a man's eyes and kick him in the balls instead of a straight fight. So I'll ask, either rhetorically or prevailing on Buckethead to pose the response on behalf of those who might or might not be his ideological brethren. Why the name-calling? Why are you insisting that the left (whatever that is) hates America? On what do you base your opinions? What are you trying to achieve? "I hate you and you hate me and you hate America." What does this accomplish?

As is your agreement re: the government's creative use of the Patriot Act &c &c. As I said earlier today-- is it sadder that it happens, or that we all expected it? 

[moreover] Also, regarding hate crime and terror legislation, right on! 

[moreover, once over] Regarding "Purity *Of Essence* of Our Precious Bodily Fluids," good catch. Sheesh. 
 

That some government entities are using their police powers in ways not envisioned by the authors of the Patriot act. Of course they are using that authority against non terrorists. Just as the RICO statutes were used to persecute people who weren't racketeers. And a thousand other examples. There is a certain set of activities that are obviously criminal. Killing, stealing, etc. There is some value in breaking down a category of crime - fraud, counterfeiting, false advertising, insider trading, etc. But there is no sense in making terrorism a crime. I apply the same logic that I apply to hate crimes. Did you kill someone? Well, that's murder. Intent is necessary to prove murder - but what kind of intent shouldn't matter. We already have crimes for these things. Leave it be. Our police agencies are more than capable of tracking down criminals inside the United States, and they don't need new powers to do so. 

The Supreme court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect us. They investigate, and prosecute after the fact. They also serve a deterrent function. They do, and certainly should, try to foil criminal plots. They should share information with the public (the general militia) so that we can more capably provide for our own defense, which is our responsibility as free citizens. 

The only changes I would have made in the wake of 9/11 would have been to take the leash off our foreign intelligence apparatus. The homeland security department is ridiculous. Restrictions on our freedoms to protect our freedom is ridiculous. Taking out terrorists overseas with hellfire missiles before they can do us harm is logical. Homeland security starts with putting the fear of god into those who would harm us, not by giving the FBI and the entire alphabet soup of federal agencies the power to violate my privacy and civil liberties. 
 

No president has recieved a majority of the popular vote in the last three elections. Percentage of registered voters actually voting is low. Registered voters are an ever smaller fraction of eligible voters. There are two sides to this comparison that you make. On the one hand, you can say that you are shocked, shocked to find that more Americans are interested in the vapid American Idol competition than in who will head up the executive branch of our government. And in many senses this is disturbing. The peeple, the unwashed masses, have no conception of civic duty, of the intelligent exercise of the right of franchise, or the like. They are more concerned with which bubble-head, asshatted, no talent publicity seeker wins a contest. Holy jeebus. I do wish more of my fellow citizens took their responsibilities more seriously. On the other hand, it is simply miraculous and largely unprecedented in history that so large a population is so insulated from the often pernicious consequences of politics that they can safely ignore them. Throughout the world and throughout history, choosing sides in politics is a life and death decision. 

I often weep or gnash my teeth at the most recent outrage. Some of them are the same things that outrage Johno. Less frequently, they are the things that exercise Mike. I think these things are important. I think about them, discuss them, and write about them on this blog. I am a (very small) part of the national discourse on the crucial issues facing our nation. But I could tune out the whole thing, and lead my life without any great fear that the fortunes of my family would be direly affected. Affected, yes, but not in the same sense as choosing the wrong side, or staying neutral too long in France in 1790, Germany in 1848, Russia in 1920, or China in 1950, or Iraq just recently. 

Some people seem to think that American Exceptionalism means that we are better than anyone else at everything. This is not true. (Lots of things, not everything.) The reason that the United States is exceptional is not that our government is so capable, often it is the exact opposite. But our system allows all quarter+ billion of us to use (or not use) our abilities to the fullest. However we choose. The governent, by and large, stays out of the way. We panic whenever it encroaches on some aspect of our life. But we choose our jobs, where to live, how to live. We don't need passports to leave the state. We don't need a governent permit to set up a seditios weblog. We don't need a bureaucrat's blessing to try and build a working space ship in our garage as a hobby. (Which thousands of people do.) That is exceptional. Regardless of the fact that 58 million found time to vote for Kelly Clarkson, you can't compete with a nation whose populace builds spaceships for fun. Or invents whole new industries that change the way the entire world operates out of a garage, for fun. (Personal computers.) To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the Liberty, stupid." 

And liberty means that people can vote for Kelly Clarkson, and not for president. 
 

...that is, legislators. Sorry. Joshua Micah Marshall has the latest on this incident, which I referenced a few days ago. CalPundit and Marshall both see a criminal investigation in the future for Tom DeLay as the result of his role in calling in Homeland Security and participating in the cover-up. Ho-ly crap. 

Is there something in the water in the Beltway? There seem to be more than the usual share of Captain Insano moves recently. Not least of which is this roundup by TalkLeft (via Instapundit) of uses of the USA Patriot act against non-terrorists. Is it sadder that this is happening, or that everyone seemed to expect it? I

 thought the Republicans were the party of limited government interference and small spending. Where do I go now if I believe in these things? The Greens?? 

[ed] not going to include links on 8/7/03.
 

Regarding Howard Dean's critiques of Bush's foreign policy towards libervaded nations, a caveat. Whereas it's all well and good for Dean to hope for egalitarian, non-gender-discriminatory, republican/democractic societies in the Middle East, it's quite unreasonable to actually expect such a thing anytime soon. And it may be for the better. I don't like the progress in Afghanistan or Iraq any more than Dean does (tho it's too soon to tell anything sure about Iraq), but I believe that trying to impose such a radical vision of equality in either nation would be a huge mistake.

Change happens in increments, and it's often painful. If it comes overnight, it's often catastrophic. Well, those nations have been through enough catastrophe without having us engineer one of our own for the sake being able to boast of a free election before it's time for one. If democratic government is going to come to the Middle East, the nations so choosing must find their own path. At the risk of sounding paternalistic, our job is to guide them and advise them when necessary, not to create by fiat institutions of democracy where none exist. Democracy must first make sense as a concept within the context of the nation, before it can thrive. That might happen in five years, and it might happen in fifty. But ideally when it happens, it will be because local leaders figured out how to adapt the principles of 1776 and 1792 to the Middle East in 2003. So, Dean riding Bush for not pushing for such a program now is a bit disingenuous, no matter how good it sounds. I hope that, if he is elected President, he has the sense to listen to his foreign policy advisors.

Man, won't he ever stop? Every time I think Howard Dean is about to lose control of his finely-modulated Jekyll and Hyde act and become the vituperative beast he is whenever Kerry baits him, he redeems himself mightily. If he keeps it up, he just might be the next Democratic candidate for Pars-dent. Besides which, the man's incredibly fun! Via Aziz Poonawalla comes this interview. Mr. Poonawalla pulls out the super-money quotes, but I'm going to highlight a few other sections as well that I find compelling.

# On education:" "The people I am running against have mostly voted for 'No Child Left Behind,' which most teachers think should be called 'No Behind Left.' Or 'No School Board Left Standing' from the school board members point of view. It's a huge unfunded mandate and there's an awful lot of bad educational policy in there."
# On Media Regulation: "The media has clearly abused their privilege, and it is hurting our democracy. Deregulation in many areas has simply proved to be bad for America, bad for the American economy, bad for the average working person, and bad for democracy. We need to take a different view. Some deregulation is a good thing. We went too far, and now we need to cut back."
# On Oil Policy and Terror: "We've taken our eye off the ball because of the President's obsession with Iraq. We need a new oil policy, something other than "Let's drill in the national parks," because our oil money is being used to fund terrorism in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. I might also add that there are these fundamentalist schools set up to teach children to hate Americans, Christians and Jews. That's a real problem for terrorism down the line. "
# On the Patriot Act:" I would do two things. First of all, I would remove the parts of the Patriot Act that are clearly unconstitutional. It can't be constitutional to hold an American citizen without access to a lawyer. Secondly, it can't be constitutional for the FBI to be able to go through your files at the library or the local video store, to see what you've taken out in the last week, without a warrant. The other thing I would do is appoint judges that would uphold the constitution. . . .I hate to agree with anything Dick Nixon said, but Dick Nixon used to say that he wanted strict constructionists for the bench. This President is appointing right-wing judicial activists. We need strict constructionists that believe in the constitution and will uphold it as written."
Zing! Well, if nothing else, this guy always speaks his mind. Even though it scares me a little bit when he talks about gun control at the local level (not excerpted here), at the end of the day, it just means that the barbarians will take the Liberal East, leaving the well-armed people in the middle firmly in control of their destinies. Northeasterner I may be, I can't get too exercised about that. Also, I think he may be wrong about the FBI not needing a warrant to search your files... if I'm correct they just don't have to tell anyone about it. I'll have to check that. I have to say, although he does not have national leadership experience as some of the other Democratic candidates have, neither did Lincoln, Washington, or Reagan. I dig this guy.

But the best part of the interview comes at the end, where Dean is asked about foreign policy and nation-building.

What Bush is doing in Afghanistan is a huge problem, and bodes very ill for what is going to happen in Iraq. The President has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did. However, there's no follow-up. The best defense policy we could have in this country is not just to have a strong military, but it is to build middle-class nations with strong democratic ideals, where women fully participate in the government. Those countries don't go to war with each other, and they don't harbor groups like al Qaeda.

We're not doing that in Afghanistan. We're making deals with corrupt and crooked and undemocratic warlords in order to pacify Afghanistan. That is exactly the mistake the United States always makes. The notion of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a huge mistake, and this administration is doing that. If they do that in Iraq, we're going to end up with an enormous problem, as we may well have in Afghanistan if the President doesn't add more peacekeeping people. The irony of this is that all the nations the President insulted before going to war in Iraq are the people we need now. We need more troops, which means we need NATO and the United Nations to get involved in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with being nice to the French and the Germans. It has to do with protecting our soldiers who are going to be seen more and more every day as an occupiers and less as liberators.

Damn straight. We tried the "enemy of my enemy" approach in the Cold War and we're still cleaning up that mess. Even if he doesn't win the election, he'll have a heck of a career as a talking head if he wants it. Who else besides me wants to see Dean and John McCain together on a show? Hot stuff, you bet!

According to Knight-Ridder (Michael, I sense danger!), all documents relating to the Department of Homeland Security's involvement in the search for the fugitive Texas legislators last week have been destroyed.

Right. Because the legislators were terrorists. And because what state lawmakers do is the business of the Federal Government. Right. From the article:

One day before Democrats ended their boycott of the Texas House last week, the Texas Department of Public Safety ordered the destruction of all records and photos gathered in the search for them, documents obtained Tuesday show.
A one-sentence order sent by e-mail on the morning of May 14 was apparently carried out, a DPS spokesman said Tuesday. The revelation comes as federal authorities are investigating how a division of the federal Homeland Security Department was dragged into the hunt for the missing Democrats - at the request of the state police agency.
Addressed to "Captains," the order said: "Any notes, correspondence, photos, etc. that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representative members shall be destroyed immediately. No copies are to be kept.

The piece also covers Tom Ridge's defense of the DHS involvement: "We thought it was very appropriate, based on the multiple inquiries that we received from members of Congress, that we deploy the means with which Congress has given us, and that's an inspector-general within our department."

Right. Because there was terror or something. And Congress asked you to.

Jackasses.

I see in this WaPo column that only $9M are being budgeted to the program this year, and about $20M next year. Though the article refers to this as "serious" cash, that's dead wrong--$9M is chicken change. Many members of Congress are against the program, and it looks like they want it to dangle quietly for a while and die.

Of course, the real question that paranoid types might ask is how many un-allocated funds will end up going to TIA, and whether the slim public budget is only a cunning ruse.

From various sources today I see this report which notes that, over the last five years, Republican legislatures have spent more than Democratic legislatures.

State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats. State spending rose slowest -- 6% annually -- when legislatures were split, and each party controlled one chamber. Inflation averaged 2.55% annually 1997-2002.

Let's see... the Republicans spend like drunken sailors, don't like "the gays", are the party of Trent Lott, and are as a group socially conservative. They're my exact opposites!

Until the Lott affair, and the Santorum follow-up, I actually registered very briefly as a Republican (I live in New England, and I'm a contrarian by nature). I justified this decision by arguing that Republican legislatures support smaller government and more judicious spending of fewer funds. I now see I could not have been more wrong. No tent is big enough to hold both Rick Santorum and me.