perfidy

Ok, ok, ok, you got me. I'm a Cafeteria Federalist, to be sure! 

The goals of the Federalists are no longer valid-- history has moved along too far, and proven them wrong on many counts. I still think a national bank is and was a good idea, but the rest of it has been rendered silly by the passage of time, and don't agree with them. 

As for loose constructionism: the Constitution is full of compromises, some good, some not-so-good (the 3/5ths clause comes to mind). It is not the received word of God, handed down verbatim from His holy tongue, but rather a set of really good ideas the spirit of which must be respected while keeping in mind that we no longer live in 1787. That being said, phrases like "Congress shall make no law" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" are pretty unequivocal. 

As for Query number 9, of course I fear Aaron Burr. The descendents of Jonathan Edwards are not to be fucked with. In sum, I'm as much a Federalist as a Republican, by 1795 terms. But, since "Republican" now means its opposite, what the hell. I'll steal the definition of Federalist for myself, and start an Alexander Hamilton fan club! 

Senor dos Pesetas, 

Would you consider yourself a dyed in the wool hardcore Federalist who accepts all precepts of the Federalist party? Or, given your usual political makeup, would you call yourself a cafeteria Federalist? Do you accept or dismiss the following precepts? 

1. The wealthy are the natural rulers of society. Therefore suffrage must be restricted to those who own substantial property. Popular votes for the Presidency are utter foolishness.
2. The government should support and promote native commerce and industry through protectionist tariffs.
3. The government should protect the interests of the wealthy over the poor.
4. France sucks and England rocks.
5. A National Bank is a necessity for American financial stability.
6. The Bill of Rights is at best a necessary evil to placate our opponents, and at worst opens the door to mob rule.
7. Strong central government is an absolute necessity.
8. Loose constructionism of the Constitution.
9. Dueling with Aaron Burr is extremely dangerous. Duel at your own risk. 
    

Quoting Buckethead:

One thing is obvious about the anti-war protestors, aside from lack of a keen fashion sense. It is that they are far more anti-American than they are anti-war (let alone pro-peace.) Many freely admit that Saddam is a butchering fascist - but that doesn't stop them from opposing our own Hitler, George W. Bush. This is a complete divorce from any kind of moral reasoning. No sane person can claim that Bush is worse than Hussein, or that the American government is as repressive as Saddam's

Mister Bucket, with all due respect, although there are some anti-war protesters out there who genuinely hate our country, there are others who love it deeply, and your post conflates the two. You called me a federalist a few weeks ago-- and thanks for that. As implied, my love for our country goes all the way back to the ideals of 1776 and 1787, and for that matter to the first European immigrants to the coasts of Virginia and Massachusetts, filthy monarchists, Congregationalists, and venture capitalists they may have been. I am against the war in Iraq, but I wish for a speedy conclusion to it. These are not mutually exclusive, much less antithetical positions. In fact, they are perfectly reasonable, and moral. 

I am pro-American, but, like WCM still don't feel that the Iraq invasion was the liberty-sanctioned historical inevitability you believe it is. Is it an act of pure evil? No. Are slaughtering Iraqis left and right? From what I can see, just the opposite. But, the decisions underlying the Iraqi invasion stand outside what I believe to be "The American Way Of Doing Things." Period. Times are changing, and it is possible that history will prove me wrong, but this is they way I see it. I don't care for Bush, but I'm certainly not going to compare him to Hitler*, and for your information my fashion sense is impeccable. 

Your larger point is taken, but please take care to not paint people like me with the hippie-loving America-hating brush. It smells funny. 

[wik] Can "Hitler" be a verb, in English? "To Hittle?" In a sentence: "President Mugabe seems determined to Hittle his way into history." 
 

It is rumored around D.C. that the authoritarian Wet Dream of the " Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", AKA Patriot II, is defunct for this year. Good news!!

However, celebrating its demise is less important than watching to make sure that little bits of it don't end up in other, more innocuous bills. The "RAVE Act" was apparently acceptable to many Congressmen, and its provisions are hardly less outrageous than those of Patriot II. I promise, dear reader (yes, you, the only reader), my sharp steely gaze is fixed firmly on this... ooh! Is Trading Spaces on?

This is indeed a serious problem. Unfortunately, there isn't much anyone can do other than writing to people in Congress and voting against those who support it. The civil liberties of Americans and those residing in the U.S., as I stated in a previous post, have been consistently whittled away during my lifetime. Like all humans before us, however, we are all subject to injustices due to circumstances beyond our control. Once the reps have gotten their letters and the votes cast, it's just a matter of finger crossing and hopes for the best. Once again, I lack optimism on this, as well as most other issues. I, as Johno indicated, am the kind of person who contributed money to perhaps the sort of organization that would fall on the wrong side of things under Patriot II. 

Iraq and political goals 

A recent report on PBS Frontline outlined the causal factors and what political goals do exist for the Iraq war. According to the report, members of George Bush the elder's government, who referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites, wanted to seize Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein in 1991. They were checked by Bush the elder, who pursued the limited goal of expulsion from Kuwait. Now, some people who sought the removal of Hussein, such as the current Vice President Richard Cheney and current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are back in power and employing the attacks of 11 September 2001 as an excuse to remove Hussein from power. I reiterate though, there are no real links between al Qaeda and Hussein. The Ansar camp recently taken is in Kurdish, nominally U.S. controlled territory, spitting distance from the Iranian border. It seems more likely that if any governments supported the Ansar camp, it was probably Iran and not Iraq. 

Maybe After the passage of Patriot II Johnny will have to put his two cents in from a cell. We can carry on discussions by tapping through the wall to each other in Morse code, as in Darkness at Noon. 

SARS, the Iraq war, Patriot II, it all makes things look pretty bleak these days. 
 

Andrew Sullivan is writing over at MSNBC about the government's increased efforts to rely on private data-collection firms to get the information they are barred from collecting themselves. 

Now, that's just a dirty trick, not to mention stupid. Private data collection firms don't have a great duty to verify the truth of their data any more than the government does. It has taken Li'l Sister Two-Cents years to clear her name, after another person with the same name ran into huge credit trouble. The databases just never seemed to be be updated, time and again. 

This is the awesome power the Gubmint wants to harness? I guess we shouldn't look forward to them changing the name on the J. Edgar Hoover building after all. 
 

I've been reading more and more about civil liberties, and the proposed revisions to the USA-PATRIOT act that are apparently forthcoming soon. It's chilling stuff. 

A story is out today that that a senior Intel engineer has been detained without being charged for giving money to an Islamic charity. The FBI claims that the charity in question has ties to Al Qaeda, but upon investigation, The Register has found that those connections are mostly imaginary. The best they can do is demonstrate that one time, a member of Al Qaeda gave money to the same, prominent, charity-- not the other way around. 

Think about that. A real guy, a computer nerd regular smart-guy Joe, detained indefinitely, without due process, for giving money to a charity that a branch of the government decided in retrospect may be loosely associated with terrorism. I don't like the implications of that one goddamn bit. 

Anyway, on to USA-Patriot II. Matt Welch has an update today on Alternet, and Nat Henthoff had a cutting analysis in the Village Voice at the end of February. Thanks to the Center for Public Integrity I have my own copy of the bill to read. Here's what I found. Among other fun pursuits, the US government would be given the power to:

• revoke one's citizenship --" the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct"
• hold any person indefinitely in secret, without notifying a soul
• make it a crime to tell anyone about subpoenas served under Patriot II
• start a national DNA database of arrestees, as long as they are labelled as potential terrorist conspirators of any kind, or as long as the DNA "may assist in the investigation and identification of terrorists and the prevention of terrorism"
• specifically limit the recourse of private citizens, and the recourse of courts acting on their behalf who have been wrongly detained or investigated
• wiretap anyone for fifteen days, without a warrant, provided that at some point in the recent past that Congress has approved military action or a national emergency has been called
• grant immunity to businesses who report on employees' activities, even if the tips are false
• revoke habeas corpus for permanent resident aliens
• and spy on US citizens on behalf of other countries.

The document also contains language that would make the "sunset" provisions in the original PATRIOT act -- this is, certain draconian measures set to expire in five years -- permanent. There's also a bunch of more minor nibbles at liberty -- the government could look at your credit report at will (secretly), would operate under less judicial control when wiretapping citizens, gets expanded FISA powers, etc., etc., etc. 

As I've said before, it's a bad thing when the residents of a free nation begin fearing their government as I begin to fear mine. The worst part about it is the powerlessness I feel. What can I do? Write my congressmen? Write John Kerry?? I wouldn't trust John Kerry to save orphans from drowning, if he could find a political downside!! 

I'm going to do write them, but whoopdiddleydoo. I'm a broke secretary who doesn't have the scratch to donate to campaigns. Therefore, I don't count so much. Sure, I'll vote against anybody who supports the act, but by that time, the law will be in place and since it's all secret police without due process, it will be very, very hard for someone to sue the government for acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. Bye bye, checks and balances! These could be dark times indeed, if the Justice department uses the war as cover to ram through measures such as these. If I may be totally cynical for a moment, this is one of the reasons I thank God that terrorists have not been able to hit us again as they hit us two years ago. 

And you don't think any of this could happen to you? Did you ever give money to Irish causes? How about PETA, ELF, or a Right-To-Life cause? Or to an Israeli relief charity? A Palestinian relief charity? Your local mosque? Good luck to you then. I understand full well that I'm looking at the situation and seeing the worst possible outcome. But, for some reason, I tend to do that when it's civil liberties at stake. Must be the idealist in me. I better get to work on repressing that.

As I'm sure we all are insanely aware, the Supreme Court is hearing the UMich affirmative action case today. I suddenly find within me an overwhelming urge to support affirmative action, mainly because Justice Scalia is such a penis.

I have been hacking away at a huge wordy essay detailing why I think that affirmative action causes more problems than it solves, and I have axed it in favor of this simple statement: Affirmative action causes more problems than it solves. Rather, affirmative action is not equipped to address the problems it should be, and stands in the way of its own ultimate goal of reducing America's obsession with race.

AA comes from noble sentiments and honorable motives, and I support it in principle. But, without dismissing several hundred years of history and systematic repression, there are many social, cultural, economic, and geographic factors aside from race that determine how a child's education should go. It's my sense that economic factors influence more about a person's educational path than does race, yet colleges do not consider economics when deciding admissions policy. You can show me case after case of a brilliant student who, since he or she is from Bushwick, doesn't have the chance to go to Yale. I will in turn show you case after case of brilliant hillbillies from Bluefield who are in the same boat. Worse, affirmative action stands in its own way. Now, when we want to talk about race-based issues in education, we talk about affirmative action. Unfortunately, AA doesn't address the big race-based education issues that remain. For example, take the high incarceration rate among young black men. A felony rap means not being eligible for federal student aid, a Clinton policy that cut off a large swath of society from easy access to higher education. Affirmative action can't touch that, though it's partly a race-based education issue. Public schools are in the shitter all over the place, and students advance grades without learning basic skills. Affirmative action can't compensate for that either, though that's what it was meant to do. Instead, the debate remains confined to a few issues such as quotas/not quotas, and cuts the real problems out of the debate.

Two problems ensue. First, by leaving some of the biggest issues outside the discussion, AA weakens its own agenda of equalizing access to education regardless of race. Second, every day that AA programs continue to exist is one more day that race remains an issue in education-- hardly a step towards an institutionally colorblind society.

The US is not, and should never be, colorblind. Black identity, and for that matter, Irish identity, Latvian identity, and Ohio Briar-Hopper identity are too rich to discard. But affirmative action is a right-minded half-measure that does not address the full complexity of the problems it purports to solve. Institutional colorblindness (as opposed to social/cultural colorblindness) is a noble goal, and it's becoming clear that affirmative action won't achieve it as currently structured. Am I in favor of getting rid of it totally? Not really. But a major re-thinking of its fundamental premises are in order, to ensure that it actually does the job it's intended to do.

Did I mention that "Scalia" means "penis" in Ewok?

n.b. Reasonable people may differ. I welcome any and all discussion, rebuttal, and ad hominem attacks. I'm a big boy now.

[wik] Dahlia Lithwick has a great synopsis of the proceedings at Slate, including a sound-clip of an extremely eloquent argument from Justice Breyer. From the article: "Everyone seems to agree that the racial divisions in this country are a terrible problem, and almost everyone agrees that they need to be handled via subterfuge: The affirmative action camp is for "critical masses" that look like quotas and for "diversity" that may not bring about diversity. The anti-affirmative action camp is for pretending that other remedies work when it's clear that you can't fix race problems by ignoring race. These are not really legal questions at heart; they are almost insoluble social and moral ones. Take heart in the fact that the court at least respected us enough today to address them as such."

[alsø wik] "Scalia" also means "penis" in the ancient language of Atlantis.

Mike, your description of American empire, as it were, as driven by corporations strikes me as apt. Two associations come to mind: Emily Rosenberg's theis of US diplomacy in the Wilson era being driven and facilitated by corporate interests, and the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, whizzing through the galaxy, artificially accelerating civilizations' development in order to cultivate new markets.

In fact, I think one of the major, major, problems that other nations have with us is not that we act imperialistically, but rather that through successful marketing and plain appeal, US products and corporations transform indigenous ways of life.

This is the root of our hegemony, not our military might.

However, even though this force allows us the latitude to act that we currently enjoy, the transformations societies go through when buying US products or harboring US companies are not without severe drawbacks. These drawbacks can, of course, breed resentment. For examples, see the way Coca-Cola is damn tasty and safer than the water, but it wrecks your teeth. Or the debacle over Nestle's marketing of baby formula in Latin America, claming it was all a baby needed, nutrition-wise. Or how DOW mis-handled the Bhopal disaster horribly. Let's not forget the Nike shops in Thailand Mike mentioned, whose employees, thought they often make good money, still can't afford the Nikes they spend all day making. Good corporate policy rarely makes for good foreign policy, yet it is the main shaper of the US' activities and perceptions abroad.

Part of what Islamic terrorists rail against is the inexorability of this force, and it is part of the reason behind their attempts at judging us as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

I have been very busy. I am, even now, composing a reply to your fascism thingie. However, while I'm doing that, your one sentence comment on Empire didn't answer the one question I asked for which I was most curious to hear your reply: "If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work?" How are we creating, maintaining and administering this empire.? I truly don't see evidence of anything that I would describe as empire - even an informal one. Exerting influence, yes; playing politics, yes; even military action, yes - but I don't see that we are actively trying to control other countries, or peoples, on any kind of systematic basis.

Also, in regard to the expectations for the war 

No official of this government, or in the military has ever said that the war would be over in days, or that the Iraqis would surrender en masse right at the beginning. Granted, they want the war over as quickly as possible - but Bush regularly said that we should be prepared for a long, difficult fight. And for that, he was accused by the media of putting on the spin, to lower expectations. But consider, there are still only a handful of combat casualties after nearly a week of fighting. And, we are less than fifty miles from Baghdad - it took six weeks to get this far in '91. This is the fastest armored assault in military history. The only army that ever moved faster (toward the enemy) is the Mongol Hordes. And given the logistical hurdles that we have and 'Ol Genghis didn't, that's pretty remarkable. We were hoping for a coup, not counting on it. Likewise with the Turks. The plan that Gen. Franks and his staff has come up with is audacious, but not ill considered. And it is going very, very well by any historical standard. 

Do I have to bring out my republic stick again? 

Gore lost the election because we have a republic and not a direct democracy. It was decided by constitutional procedures. Rule of law is more important than democracy, and that would be the greatest gift we could give the Iraqis. Rule of law leads to civil insititutions that can support democracy, it doesn't work the other way around, as many third world nations have found to their sorrow. (And remember, Bush got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did both times he was elected.)

McCain has an interesting perspective truly. It occurs to me that politicians might not be so confident of their decision for war if they are still trying to sell the war to the people. If that's not it, then just what is McCain up to? 

It also appears as though this war is not living up to the expectations of said politicians. My, my, but the Iraqis are not all surrendering in mass numbers. Did they really expect Hussein to just give up? The administration has made errors in judgment here. First, they should not have counted on a coup, because it's not going to happen. Two, they should not have counted on Turkey permitting passage to open a northern front. At the moment, most of the armor that would have gone through Turkey hasn't even made it ashore due to rerouting. Proper planning prevents poor performance, and so far the command structure might well have dropped this ball. For the sake of uniformed Americans, this should have at least waited until the armor arrived. Of course, the whole deal was a mistake in my opinion. 

Back to McCain, I say Americans have a lot of nerve thinking they can tell Iraqis how to run a democracy. The current president lost the popular vote and the election was decided in the courts. That doesn't sound democratic to me. Perhaps contest entries will consider a Constitutional amendment to rectify the situation, hmm? 

Steve, any thoughts on my explanation of Communism and the origins of Fascism and Nazism? I was expecting more discussion. 

Talking to hear my head rattle, WCM 
 

Design your own constitutional amendment, and win the undying admiration of the ruling troika of this webpage. The entry picked as winner will receive good karma in vast quantities, and a Chinese fortune cookie (only half eaten, fortune still included.) The rules:

1) It can't be an amendment that is already in the Constitution. 

2) Your amendment cannot change the laws of physics. 

3) Try to solve a real problem with your amendment, and not guarantee plentiful dogfood for every canine in America, or annex Norway or something. 

4) Write your amendment like you thought it might actually go in the Constitution with all the other clearly and beautifully written amendments.

After entries are recieved, we will post interesting ones, and declare a winner. Tell your friends! 

UPDATE: Submit entries to gustavus-at-juno-dot-com, and put "amendment" in the subject line. Any complaints can be sent to johnnyisasmartass-at-yahoo-dot-com. 
 

As a conservative, I often have difficulties with elected Republican officials. The Federalism issue is one of the most frequent. It would be nice to have an honest to god conservative president, but I don't think that is terribly likely, given the lip service that must be paid to big government by any candidate standing for election.

Buckethead: Dingdingdingding! Right answer! You're right, I am a diehard Federalist, which is funny, because our federal government is, apparently, no longer federalist. This is especially ironic since we have a Republican president. 

Wow... if the Democrats are drifting rudderless after accepting the leadership of Cap'n Clinton, the Republicans are no better off. They no longer even pay lip service to 'limited' federal government. 

Hence the paradox that frosts my flakes. Issues like education, which, with a Republican prez, should see more responsibility, latitude(, and yes, funding), devolving upon the states, are instead being swallowed by the bureaucratic beast in Washington. 

But whatever. I'm not exactly a whiz on education reform, gun control, or any other major policy issue. What the hell do I know? 

My cat's breath smells like catfood. 
 

Mr. Buckethead, 

To piggyback on your quick points, if I may. It's pretty clear that Castro is bad news. See? There's one lefty for the count. 

As to the National Socialist German Worker's Party issue, I must point a couple of things out. I'm sure this has occurred to you as well, but I would like to state for the record that the Nazis were a long way from being socialists of any stripe. While the original incarnation of the party, under the Strasser brothers, mostly, was oriented toward left of center politics, the fact that the word National preceded the word socialist in the party titled negated the whole thing. Socialism at that time was an international economic philosophy, and I might add, not a political system. For that matter Josef Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, and their ilk were a long way from being Communists. Be that as it may, President Bush is not a Nazi; that's absurd. I hope you'll notice that despite my war opposition and despite the fact that I disagree with his policies and practices, I have done my best to refrain from ineffective and discourteous ad homonym (sp?) criticism. Thus, I will say, President Bush mispronounces the word nuclear as nucular. I'm not convinced that he does it deliberately to appear folksy.
The security craze sucks, alright. Good grief. I can walk out of my building and get shot by a gang-banger or hit by a car. Hell, don't most accidents occur in the home? I could electrocute myself changing a light bulb. Safety is never a guarantee, people. Hear, hear, Buckethead! 

The University of Michigan Law School issue is thorny, but here's why I think their point system really is doing something wrong. The University has asserted that it is in the best interest of society to discriminate against white males. In fact, their point system, as I understand it and I could be wrong, also discriminates against Asians. Huh. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that discriminating against anyone, for any reason, is never in the best interests of society. The problem is that the academic realm is not a meritocracy, it is an aristocracy in which pedigree is more important than ability. Since there is no king of academia, academic aristocrats let others in the clubhouse through their own creation of new peerages. There are other more complicated issues surrounding the controversy, but that's the only one I've thought through enough to take a stand. Can I tell my students about this site? They might enjoy it.

Johno, on Reagan: 

Yes, Yes, and about as close as we're likely to get 

Mike, on Alien and Sedition: 

I don't think its very likely. The amusement factor of someone calling Bush a Nazi in Lafayette Park right north of the White House, yet remaining magically un-arrested, was about a 9.5. Civil Forfeiture is unalloyed, unconstitutional, unacceptable wrongness. Yet, there is a movement to reverse it. All is not lost. There are many bad things in this country. I could talk about them for hours. But overall, things are not just better here than elsewhere, they are good in an absolute sense. We have freedom and wealth and knowledge unimagined in history. And the basic structure of our institutions is sound, though always threatened; threatened more by expediency and good intentions than by malice. There's a lot of things I'd fix, but many more that I'd leave alone. 
 

Texas Senator John Carter is proposing that the government bust a few teenagers for file trading and send them to prison to make an example of them for the other, like, billion people who do this. 

I think this strategy of deterrence is a GREAT allocation of time and money. It's already worked like magic against pot smokers! I mean, nobody smokes pot anymore, do they? 
 

Well, what I tried to say, however ineptly, was this: It seems to me that the presidency of George W. Bush is unfolding much as Reagan's did. He is pursuing some similar policies, prosecuting a war against forces who would destroy American values, going ahead with SDI, enacting conservative social policy, etc. At the same time, he is suffering some of the fallout that Reagan did; e.g. coming across to some as alternately callous and clueless, and inspiring rabid, ad hominem attacks. The parallels between them are striking to me. Those things that can't be helped-- that people hate Bush as they did Ronnie-- are there, as are the resemblances that Bush could cultivate if he wanted to-- the policy decisions, the date with history, Dick Cheney, the rest of his cabinet sans Condi, and the whole idea of "compassionate conservatism" (empty as that has proven to be). 

• Do you think these parallels are as apparent as I think they are?
• Do you think Bush sees himself as Reagan's spiritual heir?
• If so, is he right?

As for my thoughts about Reagan, history so far has been very kind to him. I'm embarrassed to say that, since I spent the years 1981-1989 playing Dungeons and Dragons in various basements in Hooterville, Ohio, my firsthand recollections of Reagan's presidency are mainly the big moments, certain bits of invective, and Alex P. Keaton. Even worse, since I spent my history education studying the nineteenth century, I haven't filled in that hole in my knowledge.Can someone please recommend me a good biography of him as President that is neither hatchet job or hagiography? 

[update]This is starting to turn into a thing, and I didn't mean it to. I'm just trying to find out if you other guys share my feeling that Bush reminds me of Reagan a little.

You say the attacks on Bush are similar to the attacks on Reagan. You seem to imply that the attacks on Reagan were misplaced, that he wasn't an amiable dunce, that he did have a grasp on policy, wasn't leading us to hell, and faced down the global menace of communism. So are you saying that Bush is no Reagan, and that this comparison is wrong?

So is Bush stupid, unable to comprehend the policies he's advocating (or not advocating), and not facing down terrorism? And you're asking if this behavior is deliberate? Or that critics were right to criticise Reagan but wrong on Bush?

Forgive me, but I don't see what you're getting at.

Do you think, on Bush's part, it's deliberate?