Eric Muller reminds us of a time when a war president actually wanted a liberal on the US Supreme Court. Of course that was a time long ago and far away, years before my parents were born.
Posted by armand at July 23, 2005 12:33 PM | TrackBack | Posted toBro,
You're right, he wanted a liberal on the Supreme Court. In fact, he not only wanted to appoint one liberal, he wanted to make seats for six more.
Well, there's no constitutional requirement mandating that there can only be 9 justices. There have been both more and less.
Posted by: Armand at July 24, 2005 10:03 AM | PERMALINKConstitution schmonstitution. Armand, you're forgetting, "packing the court was an attempt to institute socialism in the US." Don't you keep up with the right's themes?
Posted by: binky at July 24, 2005 10:44 AM | PERMALINKBro,
There is no Constitutional ammendment on the number of judges. And there's no Constitutional ammendment on the number of votes required for cloture that the conservatives want to change via the nuclear option. At first there was no cloture, then in 1917 it required two thirds majority, then in 1975 it was reduced to three fifths. If you're standard is that anything's cool as long as the Constitution doesn't forbid it, you would have no objection to the nuclear option in order for a party to get the decisions they want on the Court. There is precedent for reducing the number of votes required for cloture (twice), and the Constitution doesn't forbid it.
Mo - Huh? Why do you think my standard is "anything's cool as long as the Constitution doesn't forbid it"? That's neither my standard, nor that of Scalia, Thomas, etc.
Posted by: Armand at July 25, 2005 08:51 AM | PERMALINKmorris, as always, is just moving the target around when people start shooting. winning by not losing. or something.
Joshua,
Of course it's a matter of moving the target around when it comes to this blog. They want to run anti-conservative and anti-Bush stories (hence the name, antiquated though it may be), and nothing about how ironic it is that Kerry's demanding the release of Roberts' records when he wouldn't release his own military records to back military service he wanted to use to justify his election. If all they want to do is run stories against conservatives and Bush (and let's be honest, the numbers of threads attacking conservatives vastly outnumber threads questioning notable liberals), I'm going to move the target around to remind our fair moderators that their standards and logic used when liberals attack is sometimes inconsistent with the standards and logic they use when conservatives attack.
In his defense of a thread about the nuclear option, Armand writes, "And I don't much care which party is messing with the rules." But in this thread, when he's defending changing the rules to add liberal justices to the Supreme Court, he excuses the action of FDR by saying that it isn't like the Constitution forbade him from changing the rules. They're both examples of changing the rules, but this one, he argues, is okay (because it would have brought more liberals to power).
"this blog. They want to run anti-conservative and anti-Bush stories (hence the name, antiquated though it may be)"
Are you talking about Bloodless Coup or "is that legal?"?
Bro - Ah, the conclusions you leap to. Show me where I argued in favor of FDR's "court packing" proposal. I made a mere statement of fact. I offered no opinion on the advisability of that idea (I haven't given the matter much thought in many, many years - if ever).
As to the topic of Binky's question - do we have more posts attacking Bush and "conservatives" than posts attacking liberals? Probably. But you see that has to do with the fact that the pro-Bush crowd runs the White House, the Congress and (it's fair to argue) the Supreme Court. Since these individuals are much more relevant to our lives than, say Jose Serrano, George Miller and Mark Dayton, we post more on them. It would strike me as a little odd to focus on the policy proposals or actions of people who have no (or little) power over the country or our lives. I have no idea what John Kerry has to had to say about John Roberts - and I really don't care. It's irrelevant to national politics. If through some miracle that state of affairs changes, then I'll pay more attention to the junior senator from Massachusetts.
Beyond that, on of the things you'll have noticed if you've been reading regularly is that certainly Baltar, and to some extent me, complain about and are most annyoed with in politics these days is that the so-called conservatives are nothing of the sort. These people love government spending and government intrusion to all sorts of things and are far too often something that exceeds jingoistic. So, since these people have the power to implement these policies, and sadly do, of course we complain about them.
And finally on these subject - why on Earth should we "even out" the targets of our complaints. If I think Bush and Tom DeLay are screwing up the country worse than other people, isn't it those people I should raise complaints against?
If Binky and Baltar have any more to say on this complaint of yours they should of course chime in.
Oh, and I think if anything's clear now, it's that John Kerry should have opened up his records. Why he didn't baffles me.
Posted by: Armand at July 25, 2005 08:09 PM | PERMALINKBro,
So, if I understand you right, you may or may not agree with Supreme Court packing (but you find it irrelevant to other political power despite that the argument you make to eschew the prospect FDR might have been out of line equally eschews the prospect that liberals are right about the nuclear option); and it isn't really conservatism that irks you so much as people who call themselves conservatives and support government programs that weren't there before they were in office, so to you the ideal conservative is someone who cuts programs that exist already and doesn't start any new programs (if I wanted liberals to be in power, that would be my ideal conservative too)--and in keeping with this line of thought, it is the responsibility of liberals to obstruct legislation offered by conservatives, despite the fact that the premise of the liberal (to use a bipolar construct that would define ideal liberalism as the opposite to your ideal of conservativism) is to make new programs to adapt to the changing needs of the country--and that makes a lot of sense, because once the liberals start obstructing you can call them conservatives, and once the conservatives start offering legislation you can call them liberals, so by your construct, conservatism's ultimate goal is the eradication of all government (obviously not the view held by most conservatives) and liberalism is defined, rather than by the ultimate extension of freedoms, but by the biggest government and the correlating lack of freedoms (obviously not the view held by most liberals).
Binky,
I'm sorry I was not more clear, I did mean the bloodlesscoup blog and its ruling triumvirate.
I will grant you the antiquted part, as Bloodless Coup has been the name of my band since about 1986 (and is again, as we have had a band meeting this very week!), the year I started college and began studying Comparative Politics of developing areas from whence the name emerged. Get it? developing areas? a new blog?
"I'm going to move the target around to remind our fair moderators that their standards and logic used when liberals attack is sometimes inconsistent with the standards and logic they use when conservatives attack."
However I will suggest that you have forgotten the aim of the Coup and also that you err in your characterization of moderators. As you might have noted the first word under our masthead is "ranting." We offer opinions, ours, and also offer space for others to present theirs, but make no real effort to moderate discussions. I have done this In Real Life, and make no real effort to do so here. If our Editor acted in the spirit of many moderators on the internets, there would be a lot more deleting and IP banning going on. In fact, I'd say what we do with visitors is argue with them, not moderate their discussions. It's more fun that way. And, it's also what we do with our closest friends when we see them IRL and beat their pants off at Risk (cough Stalin cough).
I also think you miss the point about conservatism. One third of the triumverate considers itself (pardon the neuter) to be libertarian conservative, is a lifelong Republican and to my mind is an equal opportunity offender to democrats and republicans alike. One other of the trimvirate has been a member of both major political parties, has no troubles with hegemony, and finds many democrats to be prats (which also applies to their colleagues across the aisle), and also self-identifies with libertarianism. As to the third, well, that member can self-identify if desired. I think part of why Bloodless works is that it shows there is common ground among liberals and conservatives (and speaking for myself, weirdo hybrids) who value liberty.
In any case, the main axe all of us have to grind is not with the idea of conservatism, as you suggest. And in my case, the problem is not with "people who call themselves conservatives and support government programs that weren't there before they were in office" as you describe. To my mind the problem is of false conservatives, who turn their backs on liberty, fiscal caution, and other such bedrocks. Reactionaries pretending to be conservatives, if you will.
Likewise, I think you should read today's postings more closely. You might find that I roundly chastised a liberal for being elitist, unimaginative and heartless. :P
And finally, why should you hold us to standards you don't choose to embrace yourself? It's not like you bend over backwards to criticize the right and forgive the left when you post here. You come to our house and criticize our decorating scheme while simultaneously insisting that yours is immune to criticism? I'm not suggesting you're not welcome, because of course you are, and I miss you when you are gone. Rather that while you are taking us to task, I'm hearing You May Be Right in my head.
Posted by: binky at July 25, 2005 11:34 PM | PERMALINKi think you misunderstand my sense of moving the target: when faced with something you don't want to answer, you change the subject. it's a great tactic when you do it well; indeed, it's the beating heart of effective appellate advocacy, the ability to answer a judge's question, twisted subtly to enable you to make some point crucial to your argument, then seamlessly transition to whatever barely-related point you next want to make as an advocate, without permitting enough silence to invite the same judge or another to drive the conversation further afield.
"seamless," however, is the only way to at least halfway disguise this. your transitions are more like, "oh yeah, oh yeah well . . . well . . . your mom doesn't think so."
(all in good fun morris.)
Posted by: joshua at July 26, 2005 10:28 AM | PERMALINKMorris,
What the %*^#? Let me see if I can explain this to you in very short words (I wouldn't want you to mis-understand me):
The Republican Party (or nominee thereof) controls the White House.
The Republican Party (or nominees thereof) control both houses (that would be House of Representatives and Senate) of Congress.
The Republican Party (or nominees thereof) control not only most of the Supreme Court (seven of nine justices were nominated by Republican Presidents), but about two-thirds of all Federal Judges were nominated by Republicans.
The last time one party controlled all three branches to this extent was Johnson. (If you want to look back in the archives, you will notice that I've bitched rather heavily about the Johnson decisions on Vietnam.) My operating hypothesis: anything that goes seriously wrong is the fault of the Republicans - they run the $*%&ing place. The Democrats have no real power to prevent Republican policies other than (A)public opinion (they suck at that), (B)filibusters (they don't seem to really have the balls to do that), or (C)(I can't think of a C). It's the Republican's policies, so that makes it their fault.
Moreover, just in case you hadn't noticed, they aren't really Republicans. What did Reagan stand for? Smaller Federal government, strong and moral foreign policy, and annoy the #$*@ out of the Soviets. The third of those is now irrelevant.
The second of those is something that I've bitched about here frequently: we may be (now) claiming to have done a wonderful thing by saving the Iraqis from Saddam, but in order to do that we've made friends with some awful people (Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia to a certain degree, Egypt) and perhaps more importantly we've ignored what are likely greater humanitarian/freedomless crises around the world (North Korea, Darfur, Nigeria, Iran, China/Tibet, Myanmar/Burma, and Venezuela). Oh, and don't forget Russia, which is slowly but very publicly sliding back into authoritarianism without a word of complaint from us (Bush "looked into his eyes, and saw a man he could trust", or somesuch nonesense). Now, I'm not arguing that we need a moral foreign policy (Carter tried that, and it didn't work very well), I'm just arguing that claiming we are doing thing for moral reason, and then ignoring the worst problems, is a good basis for criticism. (The best basis for criticism is that this administration does ignore worse problems, but then claims they are either not problems at all, or that they have everything under control and that there is no basis for criticism when that is abundantly blatantly false. I tee off a lot on that.)
With respect to domestic policy, what program has Bush found to cut? The Federal budget is bigger than ever, with no real sign of reduction on the horizon. Have you looked at the Energy Bill walking through conference committee this week? The whole thing should be tossed in the trash can (alternative energy subsidies alongside the crap to Chevron/Shell/BP/Exxon/Mobile). Bush, in four and half years in office, has yet to veto a single bill. Not one (which, by the way, is a clear sign that the Republicans control everything). Any spending cuts are mostly coming out of education/welfare/aid to the needy. Whether this is either moral or efficient seems besides the point. What about Enron? WorldCom? The only "crook" this administration has caught seems to be Martha Stewart (but not Osama Bin Laden). How about the Patriot Act? Do you feel safer? The House voted (yesterday?) to extend it forever. How does that jibe with basic liberties? How about secrecy? This adminstration has classified more documents than any previous one. We, the people, don't even get to know what they are up to. How about state's rights? Medical marijuana? Bush V. Gore (can't wait to see how that plays out in future elections)? Assisted suicide? Terry Schiavo?
From my perspective (a libertarian conservative), this administration seems bent on spending more, legislating more morals, damaging the separation of powers (moving more power out of the courts and Congress and removing their ability to check the executive), eroding my liberty (but not increasing my security; have you seen the spending figures for airports vs. ports vs. trains vs. roads? - which do you use more?), and generally acting like rational debate about means and ends is inappropriate in public policy, and any questioning of the President is quasi-treasonous. In short, this administration has taken the worst of the Democrats (spending like they don't have to pay the bill), the worst of the Christian right (my morals are the majority, so we should enforce them), the worst of the NeoCons (America is loved! Let us bomb you to prove it!), the worst of Nixon's paranoia/power seeking (What, you question me? You're fired, and we're going to keep track of you.), rolled it all together and called it "Republican". It doesn't look anything like anyting Republican I've ever seen.
Look, I'm not reflexively anti-Republican. I'm registered as one, dammit. I just don't see these people acting like them, and (worse), when they are called on it they come out swinging, not debating. They've stolen my %(#ing political party and I want it back.
I'll stop bitching when they stop acting arrogant, and are willing to debate how to get to where they want to go.
Posted by: baltar at July 26, 2005 10:29 AM | PERMALINKBaltar,
Where to start? This one just jumps out at me:
"The only "crook" this administration has caught seems to be Martha Stewart (but not Osama Bin Laden)."
How about Saddam Hussein, who killed a hundred thousand of his own people? How about 75% of the Al Queda leadership at the time of the September 11th attacks being brought to justice?
You make the argument that because the president was supported by the majority of voters in the last election, you want to hold him and a congress composed of a majority of members who were elected by this country's citizens responsible, ergo they're your focal point. But this doesn't explain the blindness with which you accepted the candidate who was not supported by a majority of American voters in the last election. It is this blindness that leads your blog to criticize one party over the other, and that I lament in my responses.
The best example of this recently is your threads on Karl Rove, where you ignore that Valerie Plume returned to Washington in 1997 because the CIA believed her name to have been leaked by Ames in 1994. Kerry was forgiven for leaking Fulton Armstrong's leak without prosecution or loss of security clearance because his name had been leaked before, but you don't extend the same courtesy to even the campaign manager of the candidate you opposed.
Another example of this is your threads on the filibuster, in which you conveniently leave out the fact that it was not an original part of the Constitution, and that the number of votes required for cloture has been twice decreased in the last century. You're all too eager to bring up the top ten lies about the filibuster by conservatives, but when it comes to liberals misleading Americans about this issue, this blog offers silence.
You say, "Any spending cuts are mostly coming out of education/welfare/aid to the needy."
Bush increased the amount of money spent on pell grants by more than 4 billion dollars during his first term. Funding for the Department of Education increased 58% during Bush's first three years in office.
You argue against Republicans because they're not Reagan Republicans who believe in smaller government, but let's not forget that controlling for inflation the Reagan years increased spending by a quarter, shrank spending only one percent as related to gross domestic product, and the number of government employees increased from 2.8 to more than 3 million.
http://slate.msn.com/id/100474/
I can hear that you're upset that republicans aren't what you think they should be, and I'm certainly not in agreement with them on every issue, but you move the debate away from what policy ought to be when you focus on what it means to be a republican.
Joshua,
That's a pretty funny transition. Thankyou, I needed a good laugh. I hope if I end up standing in front of a judge, it isn't the one that pops into my head.
Binky,
As far as the when conservatives/liberals attack comment, I did not mean that as when they attack each other on your blog, I meant that the arguments and logic of some threads attacking conservatives applies equally to attacks on liberals, but I don't see it carried through that way. I look forward to seeing your blog prove its intellectual honesty by giving as much grief to a liberal administration in 2024, after eight years for Jeb Bush and eight years for Dr. Rice.
You still don't get it Morris, deliberately I suspect, so I'm not wasting more breath on explaining it to you. I point out things that irritate ME. If that irritates you, so be it.
Posted by: binky at July 26, 2005 04:32 PM | PERMALINKMorris,
I think you miss the fundamental point I was making: (A)The Republicans control every branch of the government. (B)They are screwing up many things. (C)I am angry about this. (D)Their actual policies are not in line with the ideology they spout of of their lying mouths. (E)They attack people when this is pointed out to them. (F)They have given a bad name to a party that once did great things.
Is that clear enough?
Onto some specific points:
Where to start? This one just jumps out at me: "The only "crook" this administration has caught seems to be Martha Stewart (but not Osama Bin Laden)." How about Saddam Hussein, who killed a hundred thousand of his own people? How about 75% of the Al Queda leadership at the time of the September 11th attacks being brought to justice?
Saddam never committed any crime in this country, hence he doesn't count as a criminal that we caught. As to the 75% of Al Qaeda leadership, my response is (A)That clearly doesn't include either Bin Laden or the #2 guy (I forget his name), or head Taliban guy, all three of which have gotten away. (B)So what? Al Qaeda has replaced that 75% many times over ('cause we've caught most of the next round of leaders, as well). This doesn't seem to preventing their acting (maybe hampering their actions, but not preventing it).
In any event, that was mostly a domestic politics rant. You remeber all those corporate scandals? See, very few people have been prosecuted for anything (and most of those prosecuted have been declared not guilty). Bush was supposed to "restore honor to the White House", and by extension to the rest of the country. Hasn't happened.
Next:
You make the argument that because the president was supported by the majority of voters in the last election, you want to hold him and a congress composed of a majority of members who were elected by this country's citizens responsible, ergo they're your focal point. But this doesn't explain the blindness with which you accepted the candidate who was not supported by a majority of American voters in the last election. It is this blindness that leads your blog to criticize one party over the other, and that I lament in my responses.
First off, yes the Republicans who run everything are my focal point. What's the point of criticising people who can't have an influence? I could rake the Democrats over the coals for their tepid policy responses to the Republican juggernaut, but why bother? No one is seriously going to consider their policies. It's a waste of my time.
Second, I never said I liked Kerry. I accepted Kerry as the better of two bad choices (I would have prefered Clark, possibly Dean). By the time the primaries rolled around to this state, it was a done deal and all I had was Kerry or Bush. Of the two, I though Kerry at least might be logical and listen to reason and change policies when it was clear that the ones he prefered weren't working and were in fact making things worse (all things that Bush does/did). Hence, I favored him. Didn't like him, just thought he would do a better job. Didn't accept him "blindly", just thought he wouldn't screw things up as much. I didn't have high hopes, I just figured he couldn't do worse. That's not a ringing endorment.
On to Rove:
The best example of this recently is your threads on Karl Rove, where you ignore that Valerie Plume returned to Washington in 1997 because the CIA believed her name to have been leaked by Ames in 1994. Kerry was forgiven for leaking Fulton Armstrong's leak without prosecution or loss of security clearance because his name had been leaked before, but you don't extend the same courtesy to even the campaign manager of the candidate you opposed.
You are arguing that since Kerry did something wrong (not proven), we should let Rove do something wrong (also not proven), too? If Kerry broke the law, arrest him and try him (no great loss to the US Senate). If Rove broke the law, do the same thing. I've never said anything different.
As for filibusters:
Another example of this is your threads on the filibuster, in which you conveniently leave out the fact that it was not an original part of the Constitution, and that the number of votes required for cloture has been twice decreased in the last century. You're all too eager to bring up the top ten lies about the filibuster by conservatives, but when it comes to liberals misleading Americans about this issue, this blog offers silence.
The Constitution mentions very little about the specific rules by which the Senate and the House may conduct their business. The Senate evolved a method for filibustering over a couple of centuries. It isn't unconstitutional, and (at least in my mind) is in keeping with the idea that the minority faction should have some extraordinary power to slow down laws and the use of power when the minority feels it needs to exercise that power. Again, why should I bother with Democratic "lies" (unproven) when they don't have any power, and aren't the party trying to change the rules? The Republicans want to do away with it; that makes it their responsibility to explain why the rules need to be changed. Simple enough.
As for Bush's education spending, you probably have me their. Not really an important point, especially when you consider that the general thrust of my argument is that Bush's domestic spending cuts are clearly hitting (if not target on) programs that seem to help the less fortuate. Maybe education was spared. Doesn't change the overall argument.
As for Reagan's failure to actually spend less, you'd be well advised to go back and read my discussions of Reagan around the time of his death and funeral. I was not complimentary. He marched into office at the head of a coalition of voters (from the left and the right) claiming a mandate to reduce the government. To his credit, he fought (a Democratic) Congress in attempts to cut entire cabinets (Education, NEA). He lost. He tried, but he failed. The fact that he didn't live up to his promises isn't a reason to like this present batch of "Republicans" who spend like drunken monkeys any better.
As for this:
I can hear that you're upset that republicans aren't what you think they should be, and I'm certainly not in agreement with them on every issue, but you move the debate away from what policy ought to be when you focus on what it means to be a republican.
You're the one who wandered in here complaining that we're biased and always bashing the Prez. I was explaining why. It's not that Republicans "aren't what they should be", it's that (as I explained), the present batch of Republicans claim the mantle of those old tax-cutting, spending-reducing, program-axing, coalition-building pragmatic Republicans of the early 1980s (in point of fact, those Republicans never lived up to their hype either), but don't live up to even a shadow of their hype, and attack relentlessly those that criticize them. This doesn't allow for any real debate about what to do to get us out of the amazingly large number of messes we're in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, the deficit, the coming Medicare crisis, global warming, etc.). I'm not moving the debate when complaining about Republicans not being Republicans, I'm trying to explain why I post so many entries describing their failings. The subtext of this is that if Today's Republicans acted more like The Old (Mostly Theoretical) Republicans Who Made Me Want To Join Their Party, we probably wouldn't be in as many messes (since the Old Republicans wouldn't be doing all the silly things Today's Republicans are up to).
That's my point.
Posted by: baltar at July 26, 2005 05:33 PM | PERMALINKAt this point ("The fact that he didn't live up to his promises isn't a reason to like this present batch of "Republicans" who spend like drunken monkeys any better") if i had been drinking milk I would have snorted it out of my nose. Drunken monkeys.
Also on Morris's point: "but you move the debate away from what policy ought to be when you focus on what it means to be a republican." While baltar phrases it much more, ah, engagingly in his point D above, I also don't this is the case at all. Reminding a party that they ought to follow up in action what they profess in words is perfectly within the realm of a policy debate. Unlike many, I don't think ideology is a dirty word. It's supposed to be a projection of what to expect from a party should it reach power. Specific policies are designed to produce results consistent with that ideology. When the policies fail to work (ie achieve objectives consistent with the ideological projection), and the party refuses to change the policy and/or engage in debate/discussion about why said policy will eventually aceive the results (and no "because they hate our freedom" doesn't work, nor does "neener neener I'll have the FBI follow you if you ask too many more questions"), it seems perfectly relevent to ask why there is an inconsistency between what a party professes to to stand for, and what it is doing. That's a legitimate part of the policy process.
Baltar - Your latest comment is excellent. Thanks for that.
Morris - Baltar responded to everything that I think called for a response. I will make one small request though - while we are very happy to have you as a reader and commenter, I'd prefer it if you kept the sentences in your comments at less than 260 words. But that's just a stylistic thing, I realize.
Posted by: Armand at July 26, 2005 07:22 PM | PERMALINKBaltar,
It is certainly true that some Republicans don't walk the walk they talk. I find it interesting that you refer to their responses to what you term your "criticism" as relentless attacks. I wonder if they don't see your criticism as an attack which they respond to by criticizing. I wonder if you could explain to me the difference; what makes your comments "pointing out inconsistencies" and their comments "attacks"?
On your point regarding Saddam Hussein, if you'll remember it was US forces and not Iraqis who caught him. And I'll have to defer to Joshua on this one, but isn't planning the assassination of a former US President a crime under American law? Besides that, murder is a crime under just about every legal system that exists, so it's difficult for me to understand how you don't perceive him to be a criminal.
And your argument that we have caught more than a thousand terrorists but not three specific ones is like saying the legal system in America is useless because OJ and MJ got off. Yes, these are high profile cases, but how can you argue that the existence of crime or fugitives from a justice system proves that system to be useless at catching all but Martha Stewart? As to the coporate scandals, Ebbers just got 25 years which for a 63 year old is more than a slap on the wrist, and he isn't exactly the only coprorate rogue looking at a lot of jail time. The Houston Chronicle has a good graph of Enron verdicts, including 16 who pleaded guilty, 5 convicted by a jury, 1 acquittal, 1 conviction overturned, and 5 mistrials. So, essentially the prosecutors are 21-5-2 regarding all who've gone to trial already.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/enron/
And I liked that drunken monkeys thing too...good stuff.
Binky,
I'm not sure about your point regarding ideology. It seems we would want to join any party that professed to value freedom, caring for the needy, better education for children, value for human life, etc, but what's really important is how a candidate would serve these values through their time in office. The libs and conservatives both love education, but one hates the NEA and the other hates NCLB. I just wonder whether we're taking our eye off the ball when we get distracted in a policy debate about values rather than how to encourage that which is best to each of us. I understand it can be fun as a game, a debate, metadiscourse, etc., but I'm not sure we learn so much about candidates and policy when talking about values, I think it's more learning about what's important to us and how to express that to another person. It's more personal politics focused rather than government politics, and it certainly has its place.
Bro,
You're reading my mind. I've been sitting on my 90-something percentile verbal scores for the GRE laurels and getting lazy, so I'm going to get a book on revising prose today.
Now you're using the word "values." Do you think values and ideology are the same thing?
Posted by: binky at July 27, 2005 01:57 PM | PERMALINKMorris -
I'll let Baltar defend his comments if he wants to, but my reaction to your reaction to his post is that you are missing the forest and staring at a couple of trees.
It also appears to me that you are coming dangerously close to thinking of terrorism as a law enforcement problem, an approach the Republican president has derided no end (even if some of his policies treat it that way).
Finally, your statement about the No Child Left Behind Act is egregiously inaccurate. While I (at the moment a registered Democrat) find it misguided, and in some cases harmful, the vast majority of Democrats have supported it. What they don't like about it is that the president trumpets it constantly and doesn't fund it (one of the multitude of examples of Republican leaders no practicing what they preach). When it came up in the Senate only 6 Democrats voted no (3 Republicans opposed it too: Bennett, Hagel, Voinovich), and in the US House far more Republicans (33) opposed it than Democrats (6). So in this example of yours it's the Democrats who consistently like education (of both NEA and NCLB varieties), and the Republicans who don't and don't fully fund even those few education programs that they do supposedly support.
Posted by: Armand at July 27, 2005 05:00 PM | PERMALINKBaltar is not the only one. Came across this today.
Posted by: binky at July 27, 2005 07:03 PM | PERMALINKBinky,
Ideology tends to be built on a foundation of values. For instance, Malcolm X and Dr. King had different ideological approaches, but they both are connected very closely to pursuing justice, though very different ways of getting there.
Bro,
You prove my point here. The value of education is supported by both libs and conservatives, but the conservatives want to spend a bunch more than Clinton spent, to leave money to support policies that pursue other values, and the libs want to spend even more than the conservatives, because their ideology tends to value education more than those other values.
I'm a little confused as to your point on terrorism being a law enforcement matter. It was the US military, not the FBI, who caught Saddam. Terrorists are criminals in that they commit crimes against humanity.
Bro,
Sorry for the confusion, it's just such a confusing maze: conservatives hate the nea, the nea hates nclb, the nea loves libs, but libs love nclb. It's a lot for me to keep up with.
"Ideology tends to be built on a foundation of values. " Well, then, if they are different things, we shouldn't use them interchangably. Or maybe that was a dodge and I missed it.
Posted by: binky at July 28, 2005 10:06 AM | PERMALINKMorris - Are you trying not to make sense and appear misinformed? You say terrorists are criminals who commit crimes .... but ... you don't think stopping those people who commit crimes has anything to do with law enforcement? You don't think the FBI is working to apprehend terrorists? This has truly nothing to do with the original topic so I'm kind of done with this post, but those are really peculiar observations.
Posted by: Armand at July 28, 2005 11:49 AM | PERMALINK