NY Times Tom Friedman: More Bills is the Stimulus and Image Rehabilitation America Needs!

Friedman, January 30:

It is a shame because here we are as a country scrounging around for a few billion more dollars of stimulus to help our unemployed and small businesses — when the biggest stimulus of all is hiding in plain sight. And that is ending our political paralysis and the pall of uncertainty it is casting over everything from the cost of my health care to the cost of my energy to the way our biggest banks can do business.

Are we really being held back because we don’t know what our health care is going to cost?  Because we don’t know the cost of energy? Who is being held back by this.  What legislation would change this.

Energy prices have fluctuated for decades. Setting a bill that helps motivate us toward better alternatives would certainly be good for the environment, good for national security, and probably, in the long run (despite constant presumption to the contrary) good for the economy. But it does not necessarily mean we will suddenly know any better what “energy” costs. This is the nature of the market.

Friedman is sometimes perceptive (and at other times, not so much). But his quoted paragraph above seems like pure babble, that otherwise sounds and “appears” clever; something that there is far too much of masquerading as informed commentary these days.

As for the paralysis that Friedman speaks of, paralysis is not necessarily bad, if it keeps bad legislation from being passed. But he blames both sides for this paralysis on the one hand, while calling the Republicans the party of “just say no” on the other.

He also says the two “sides” should meet in the “middle.”  Why should the two sides “meet in the middle.” What if the “middle”as defined in this fashion is not right? What if the Republicans are right on some things (though right now, it is hard to see what) and Democrats are right on some others (not much easier to see what).  Does “meet in the middle” mean we pass the best bills? Doesn’t articulate the best principles, and reasons why they apply, create the best bills?  And is it really a failure to “meet in the middle” that is prohibiting this?

Democrats have a solid majority of the House, 59 of the 100 seats in the Senate, and the support of the White House. If they put together a good bill, couldn’t they also sufficiently show why it is a good bill to the few Democrats or Republicans holding it up?  (And if Democrats are so worried about a filibuster, maybe they ought to stop letting themselves be bossed around constantly by the minority party. After all, it’s not like they could stop anything themselves when they were the minority party for most of this decade (with bad ramifications, too.))

If Democrats can not put together a good bill, then there is nothing to pass. If they can put together a good bill, and show why it is, and they are still blocked by a few recalcitrant Democrats and almost the entire Republican Party, then maybe the issue is not one of “two sides not being able” to “come together,” but others negatively paralyzing the system.  Others who then lose at the voting booth, if this is 1) the actual case, and 2) once again, effectively shown.

Of course, with Rahm Emanuel, who doesn’t seem to believe in showing anything, leading White House strategy,* it’s up to Democrats in Congress, or the DNC; or maybe once again we will have the “paralysis” that Friedman writes about until Republicans can come back in and start passing things again, just like most of this past decade.

In other words, it comes down to two things, particularly with a significant majority in both houses, and the support of the White House. Putting together a good bill or bills, and effectively showing this, both to the country, and to their fellow Congresspeople: Not, as Friedman says, simply “meeting in the middle” regardless of what the various parties are claiming they want. That leads to more of the same over burdensome special interest favoring legislation that people like Friedman are often complaining about (and often correctly), in the first place.

As for why the rest of the world is starting to view our country as more unstable — the concern driving Friedman’s article — it’s not because we are not passing bills, with possibly the small exception of energy. The reason for the energy exception is that the world knows climate change is a global problem and we are still the leader of the free world, and by far largest per capita contributor to the climate change problem. (A problem that almost half the country seems to have become convinced does not exist, by the way.) And we are not seeming to do much to lead on this issue.

But for the most part, the world is not viewing the U.S. as potentially less stable than normal because of a failure to pass health care or some derivative and market traders favoring cap and Trade system, whereby much of the money that should be going into productive growth and problem redress instead goes into traders pockets;** it is probably because of the massive run up in debt, the recent financial crisis, and all of the heavy rhetoric that continues to emanate out of this country, combined with, perhaps, to some very small degree, what Friedman references; A Congress that can’t seem to get anything done — despite the fact that many think that in general, a Congress not getting anything done is a good thing sometimes.***

_____________________
*Emanuel has been routinely credited with orchestrating a masterful Democratic victory in Congress in 2006.  There is little conventional wisdom in an America that is currently chock full of erroneous conventional political wisdom, that is as off base as this.  It is the equivalent of taking over a football game in the fourth quarter, leading 31-0, and squeaking out a 30-28 victory when the ball sails wide right on a field goal try in the waning seconds.   Most people will vehemently disagree with this — particularly those in a media which endlessly parroted this assessment as if unambiguous fact  – but that’s the nature of conventional wisdom that has become entrenched as gospel.  But in 2006 the Bush administration was becoming very unpopular, concern over Iraq and foreign policy strategy was becoming alarmingly high yet the Bush Administration unfortunately was not up for re-election, and there was more anti – incumbent Congressional fervor than at any point in modern history (only to be outdone, yet again, by 2008 of course), and second term majority parties typically lose almost what the Republicans lost in 2006 under normal circumstances.

**On the flip side of this, a cap and trade system does offer some efficiency advantages. By allowing the market to fully determine how it wants to meet certain targets, more effective measures can be accomplished at less cost to the initial polluter in the first place. But in the long run, all this system is doing is rewarding an inherent right to pollute to certain entities, above which threshold they can not go — or must purchase credits from someone else. If an inherent right to pollute does exist where such pollution is contributing to a potentially alarming (and still underestimated) global problem, then everyone should have the right equally. Yet such a system is fundamentally predicated on the opposite principle — past behavior.

In the long run, simply taxing the processes is more efficient and less costly.  (Former Bush economics advisor, Bruce Bartlett, in Forbes, agrees.)  Politically unpalatable as this sounds, it is the most efficient and most “market equalizing” approach to leveling the playing field between harmful and nonharmful production processes. There is no reason that a “tax” should be frowned upon until and unless this country has no taxes; which so long as we have government and not anarchy, is a bit far fetched.  And of the many taxes that are levied, this would probably be the fairest and by far the most productive. Not only does it raise revenue, it avoids having to simply prohibit behavior that destroys the environmental quality of the world for everyone, which behavior some people might otherwise be willing to pay for — which is everyone’s right, so long as that harm is somehow integrated into the marketplace, and marketplace decisions.

Cap and trade does not accomplish this nearly as efficiently in the long run, but instead creates an entire separate market that has no value in and of itself, other than to avoid this more straightforward approach and the politically unpalatable tax word.

Not that some haven’t tried to use the term  anyway, for cap and trade (and, creatively, there is some small truth to it).  But then these “some” — in this case ex half term Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, here also argue that the way to getting off of the energy sources that are compromising national security, polluting our environment, and contributing massive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere via the geologically instantaneous release of carbon that took millions of years to accumulate, is “the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!.” And, of course, if there is one thing that is correctly known with certainty in the otherwise uncertain “art” of economics — and what, essentially, compromises “economics 101,” is that of course the answer, completely the opposite of what Palin insisted, does lie in making the behavior we want to move away from, scarcer and more expensive, relative to the behavior that we want to move toward.

Here, something that is not quite as efficient, but that can speed up the process, and add political appeal, is to take the funds derived from discouraging the energy reliance sources and processes that we need to move away from, and using part of it to encourage production and usage of the (cleaner, non finite) energy sources and processes that we need to move toward.

***The most recent incarnation of the health care bill in the Senate, to many — as much as this country probably needs health care reform to reign in rocketing public and private costs, extreme inefficiencies, and to provide better coverage and care for people — serves as an example of precisely this.

New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts

Space on the prestigious NY Times opinion pages is extremely limited.  And most of that space is routinely taken up by the paper’s own editorials and columnists.

So one imagines that on the rare occasions when the Times ventures to outside sources from among the constant inundation of submissions it normally receives, it chooses its pieces carefully — to represent a particular point of view or perspective, with careful, reasoned and logical support.

Thus, in its search far and wide for someone to provide  a provocative, informative, non misleading and relevant opinion piece on the timely and global issue of climate change recently, the Times apparently scoured the entire globe itself, finally settling upon an expert from New Zealand. A professor of philosophy named Denis Dutton.

Just below is how Dutton’s fantastic work of reason, logic, and coherency might have made its way onto the famed and highly selective pages of the NY Times.

Note that the following conversation is merely a simulation (one supposes) of a conversation that could have occurred, illustrating both the value of Dutton’s piece, as well as how it might have ended up on the highly influential and venerable NY times opinion pages:

DUTTON: I think some may be overreacting on climate change here.

So far, notice, this is a short, one sentence, unsupported suggestion, not an oped.  So how does it turn into one?

NY TIMES:   Why may some be overreacting?

DUTTON: because sometimes people overreact.

NY TIMES:  We know sometimes people over react to things.  That’s like saying that we are under-reacting to climate change because “sometimes we under react.” What’s your reason why some are overreacting on this issue?

DUTTON: because people tend to find apocalypses intriguing!!

NY TIMES:  That’s not an argument for saying climate catastrophe is overreaction, catastrophes do happen; that’s an argument for saying the world is literally coming to an end due to climate changer alone – an argument that maybe all of four people are making – and three for intended hyperbole.

When sometimes we under react to things, and other times we over react to things, saying that we are “overeacting” to climage change by giving a reason why sometimes people over react to things, which otherwise has not specific applicability to this particular instance, is tautological,and logically nonsensical.

It is like saying “I think my neigbor’s wife is having an affair;” we ask why, you say “because sometimes wives have affairs,” we ask why her, and you give a  reason why sometimes wives in general have affairs, such as “because they are lonely or bored.” You have done nothing to support why you think your neigbor’s wife is having an affair;  and you have done nothing to support why our response to climate change is an over reaction rather than an under reaction.

So do you have anything else more than “we overreact sometimes,” we under react other times, this time we are over reacting, based upon the reasoning that “we overreact sometimes”?

DUTTON: Yes, yes, of course I do.  Here goes. Here is my reason.  Drumroll please: “It seems to me.”

NY TIMES: Hey, that’s pretty good. In other words, you are not just arguing “sometimes we over react to stuff, sometimes we under react to stuff, on climate change we are over reacting, the end,” you are saying that, but with “it seems to me” thrown in.  As they say on the Guinness commercials, “brilliant!”

But do  you have anything else?  That, would make it even better.

DUTTON: Yup.  I sure do. I have even more. Since this is a scientific issue, why should we bother with any actual science, when instead we can botger with stuff that is even better than science; namely, science fiction.   Ready?  Mary Shelley Created Frankenstein.

Thus, you see, people are fascinated with this stuff, like Frankenstein, so we are over reacting on climate change!  And no one will ever pick up that we also tend to overlook other stuff, like actual science, or scenarios where there is a big lag between cause and effect, so we are underestimating climate change.  Instead, here, we are over reacting, because of Frankenstein, and fascination with Frankenstein!

NY TIMES:  Absolutely brilliant.  This is great stuff. No one will eve see what a hoax this logic is (including us!).

But allthough we know it says so much more, it might appear as if your argument says nothing more than “We are over reacting, not under reacting, this time, because because Mary Shelley created Frankenstein.”

Brilliant and relevant as that argument is, can you fill this piece with an otherwise also completely irrelevant yet excruciatingly detailed example of a time when we over-reacted as opposed to under-reacted, overlooking how that also illustrates exactly nothing — yet allowing you to essentially, and wonderfully, wasted your entire piece on it!

Since we already know we sometimes over react, just like we know we sometimes under react, giving us an example of a time we overreacted tells us nothing.  But it will come across to readers as if it does! Particularly if you spend almost your entire piece on it.  And that is what we want to do here at the NY Times. Print logically nonsensical pieces of garbage that might masquerade as something of worth.

So, can you not only give us an example of an otherwise unrelated time that we over reacted, but spend most of your at this point otherwise two sentence piece on it?

DUTTON: Sure, absolutely. Like what?  Like, maybe, talk about how many people and countries way over reacted to Y2K?

(Editor of ELA, not of the NY Times here. Ahem, Dutton, “ahem.”  Not many people but those of us that did; since the editor of this website  thought the entire notion of an unavoidable enormous Y2k breakdown just because the years on many computers were in double rather than quadruple digits, was ridiculous, and said so repeatedly.)

NY TIMES:  Exactly.

DUTTON: Done. Check  your in box.

Hard to believe, right?

NY TIMES: If you don’t believe this speculated mockusation, come read our pages, December 31, and see for yourself.

Simply saying “We overreact to some things, perhaps we are to climate change, here are some reasons why we are over-reacting here,” flawed as the conclusion that we are overreacting likely is, is fine. Dutton does not come close to doing that, however.  He suggests that sometimes we over react to things; he explains why he thinks we over-react to things sometimes (fascination with the eschatological), and then suggests that “we are over-reacting here” for no reason other than the completely tautological explanation that sometimes we do, along with the completely irrelevant reason why we sometimes do.

If anything, there would be far more driving the idea that we are under-reacting here.  Likely results are many years in the future.  The implications to many, of this, are extremely negative, because of the (flawed) perception that sensibly addressing this means we have to sacrifice our economy. There is a general lack of general scientific understanding among the populace. And our expectations are grounded in what we have come to expect, and the difficulty we seem to have grasping the ideas that 1) there is an enormous time lag here between both cause and effect, and 2) effects are very likely to be non linear (that is, potentially accelerating with increased input).

Whether that last paragraph, was a good or bad (but short) opinion piece for the Times, at least it offered reasons. Dutton offers none. What he offered is like suggesting “remember how in medieval times the plague hit, and people did not take it seriously enough;” then spending most of the time writing about how bad the plague was and how wrong everybody was; then offering up a bunch of reasons why in general people often don’t take things seriously enough (and they tend to number far greater than “fascination with eschatology”) and then concluding “it seems to me climate change is the same. The end.”  That would be a truly inane piece.  And, analogously, it is exactly the logic — and all of it — that the NY Times chose to publish.

Relax, Campaign Finance Laws are Only to Protect Incumbents

(Update below)

Don’t worry about decisions such as Citizens United.  Politifact of the St. Petersburg Times says that Obama exaggerates when he claims that foreign companies will influence American elections.

As the Times points out, we already have laws preventing foreign corporations from doing so. So a Supreme Court decision that now has incorrectly equated corporations with individuals, and given them the ability to spend unfettered on behalf of a particular political candidate — thus essentially also equating speech with money — won’t open this up at all.

But unlike in the case of individuals, corporations are often not wholly denizens of one country alone.  Many of our corporations are in some very relevant ways, multinational. Thus after this decision, there is, on a practical level, no way to prevent it.

Moreover, corporations — though their interests by definition must be narrowly, and self interestedly tailored — now have the same “free speech” rights as individuals, via the expenditure of money as their sole basis for voice, no less. Even in so far as to trump the individuals’ rights to speak out on election matters, without being drowned out by a sea of self interested corporate expenditures where the right to speak becomes defined by the corporate ability to acquire dollars. Inherent rights now somewhat equal $$.

That’s the Bill of Rights according to our somewhat radically right wing Supreme Court, and the equally corporate loyalist CATO Institute — which seems to confuse unfettered corporate power that can be in conflict with individuals, with “individual liberty.”

But relax. As Roger Pilon of the CATO Institute so convincingly suggests, “there’s no more corruption in states with minimal campaign finance laws.”  So Pilon sees the issue as one of corruption?  Not of undue, by definition self interested, and purchased with money influence upon our elections, not by individuals, but by amalgamations of individuals united for a singular purpose (normally the making of profit, but not always) who therefore are not longer acting as individuals, and can not act as individuals.  Not that issue?

Dear Mr. Pilon: If the issue of corruption were the main problem with this decision, it wouldn’t be as problematic to begin with, since corruption, so long as our other processes are working properly, can at least sometimes be discovered. It also does not normally arise from opinionated or advocacy “speech” whether voluntarily offered, or voluntarily purchased with money.

But perhaps by corruption, Pilon meant corrupting influences, or compromises to election information integrity.  And if so, since such “influences” are now protected by our Supreme Court’s radical decision as “speech,” now by definition they are not  ”corrupting” or compromising influences.”  If they were, it wouldn’t be “free speech.”  By protecting such speech, we can’t know if there is “corruption” under this very loose definition, because any corrupting influences is in the speech itself.  In other words, the issue with this decision is not corruption, as traditionally defined, but undue monied influences over actual speech.

But Pilon’s reasoning really spirals out of control when he suggests that such laws prohibiting corporations from spending, unrestrained, are really just to protect incumbents; not the actual free speech of the citizens comprising our Democracy from  being drowned out, manipulated by, or undermined by excessive monied interests and influences.

And that’s because the real reason we have this campaign finance law is not, and never has been, to prevent corruption.  The dirty little secret — the real impetus for this law — in incumbency protection.

In other words,  corporations are zealously anti incumbent, since incumbents are never looking out for corporate influences.

All that money spent on lobbying by corporate interests as it is? Not enough to overcome the intense anti corporate prejudice of our elected officials, apparently.  And those laws designed to prevent corporations from now unduly influencing election results directly themselves, via the known, and direct, correlation between influence and money? Nothing to do with protecting true free speech, but everything to do with protecting incumbents from the “truth” that corporations, by the happenstance of “money equal right” political speech, will no doubt now be able to bring to the populace directly on behalf of their favored candidates (and incumbent candidates) themselves.

And if one looks carefully at the Bill of Rights, one will see, right in between Amendments I and II, that little old Amendment IA.  ”Corporations are people too.”  Just ask John Oliver.

Pilon is not the only CATO Institute Fellow in support of Citizens.  Here’s the normally very thoughtful  Julian Sanchez, being too cerebral by half, and seemingly missing the conceptual differences between money and speech; money purchased speech and non-purchased speech; corporations and individuals; corporate and individual purpose; corporate, purchased, speech and individual purchased speech; along with the free speech interests in maintaining some form of protection from what is by definition non individual motivations and everything that money can buy speech influence, as opposed to equating everything that money can buy — including what is by definition non individual motivations — with full unbridled individual free speech itself.

Here’s Pilon also:

The First Amendment is not a “loophole.”  It’s the very foundation of our democracy, and we are the stronger today for this decision.

See?  The First Amendment doesn’t always guarantee the right to free speech, it guarantees the right to corporate profits, and then to spend those profits in the self interested corporate pre election advocacy on behalf of candidates who will further the goal of achieving those profits. Or of ideological interests.  So whoever has the most money, wins.   Thats certainly “free speech.”  Not to mention,”one person, one vote.”  Except here,just substitute “dollar” for person; and with this decision, we move closer to that brilliant “foundation of our democracy” First Amendment principle.

Update: From the New York Times, January 31, a commenter, recommended by eighty readers and counting, writes here, in a Times highlighted comment:

Actually, Obama completely and inexplicably misrepresented the SCOTUS ruling by saying that it allowed foreign companies to pay for ads when the ruling did not in fact allow them to do so. Alito shook his head softly and silently mouthed “that’s not true.” He did not “say” anything, let alone “you lie,” and again Obama was in fact not speaking the truth. But yes, I know. He should have sat motionless as the most powerful man in the world told a bald-faced lie about his work while standing 10 feet in front of him.

Maybe this commenter, and the eighty readers who recommended this, can show us how a Congress that can not even pass a simple health care bill that makes sense (or any bill) is going to effectively disentangle the now inextricably multinational dimensions of most of the world’s most powerful companies.  Or how even an effective Congress could possibly do so.

As noted above, this comment was also highlighted by the NY Times comment editors.  Highlighting, according to the Times, means “a selection of the most interesting and thoughtful comments, which represent a range of views.”  Perhaps the Times can answer the question put just above.  Along with how falsely claiming that Obama “completely and inextricably misrepresented” and “told a bald-faced lie” — over something that was as a practical matter essentially not only true, but an extremely important point — is “interesting and thoughtful.”

Meanwhile, Over in Political Netherland….

A recent post briefly addressed the travesty that is our Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. the FEC.  In the case,  the Court, overruling well established precedent, decided that as money is not only a form of absolute speech — and thus those with more money have more absolute free speech rights — corporations were entitled to the same set of “free speech” protections as individuals.  And they were entitled to these “protections” even in so far as to override Congress’ ability — that, by the way, is OUR ability (through our duly elected representatives) — to put reasonable restrictions on corporate expended political advertising and propaganda in the days shortly before a Federal Election.

Thus, the Court ruled, the “inherent right,” not of individuals, but of non living, non breathing, theoretical “legal entities,” not only exists — but outweighs our democracy’s  interest in protecting what is not “vested, pecuniary interest or pecuniarily derived” speech from the excesses of money rather than substance just before an election; when it comes, once again, not just to individuals, but corporations.

Our Founding Fathers would likely find this argument quite intriguing.  And also disturbingly misplaced.

It is a profound decision. And it is also what happens when non moderate political figures get elected, and fill their cabinets with even more influential ideologues, and Congress does not duly exercise it’s check upon Executive judicial appointment indiscretion.[i]

Indeed, no less than famed democratic columnist and scholar EJ Dionne once pejoratively wrote of the very few weak efforts that Democrats did put up to block just a few of the large number of radical Bush Administration appointments, that it was democratic “obstructionism” in retaliation for Republican obstructionism on judicial appointments in the 90s (never mind that Clinton’s appointments on balance had been far far more moderate, and less ideological, than Bush’s):

Democrats are dug in on judges precisely because they do not want to reward Republican obstruction in the 1990s. The theory is that one wave of obstruction deserves — even demands — another.

But then Democrats know how to shoot themselves in the foot better than anybody. It’s hard to know what world Dionne actually lived in. Democrats tried to filibuster a minute fraction of Bush’s judicial appointees, many if not most of whom were ideologues; with some staunchly and uncompromisingly so (one of the last traits one needs in a Jurist).

Today, as one looks at the decisions at the higher levels of our judicial system, one sees increasing evidence of an ideological mark; and many decisions that are remarkably troubling in their ramifications have come down the pike. Indeed, even Dionne, who once criticized the minimal efforts that Democrats did make in response to radical Bush judicial appointments as simple, overdone politically motivated “obstructionism,” has come to rue both many of these decisions himself, as well as the stark ideological make up of a some of our most important Federal Courts.

And Dionne, who himself just a few years ago referred to an almost radically tilted Supreme Court in the popular media lingo of the day “four liberals on one side, four conservatives on the other, with a centrist” — Kennedy — in the middle, now refers to the Supreme Court himself in different, and more accurate, terms.

Kennedy is the center of the Court. The problem is Kennedy is not a “centrist.” Though sometimes called  a “moderate” by today’s standards, he is a staunch, classical, “true” conservative. Our Court needs staunch, classic conservatives, just as it needs staunch, classic, “true” Liberals. It just doesn’t need a decided conservative as its judicial-political center.

In Citizens United vs. the FEC, a truly radical Supreme Court decision, we see the ramifations of such a lopsided Court.

And though it won’t be clearly marked — such is the nature of monied influences peddling propaganda unfettered, with the most financially well off industries and organizations able to control and frame the battle of influence — our democracy will see, and suffer, the ramifications in perpetuity, until and unless this decision is reversed.

Meanwhile, over at the often liberal and exceedingly popular Daily Kos website, a recommended front page “diary piece” today takes the cue from their unofficially appointed media ringleader, the estimable Rachel Maddow, and has determined that this decidedly undemocratic decision by our radical Supreme Court, is good for Democrats:

Until I watched the above TRMS segment on it, the decision had me terrified. Now I almost want to say ‘bwahaha’ to it. We can effectively run and win on this issue in 2010. It may also help in the HCR battle.

The misplaced hubris itself — from supporters for the same party that has allowed their opponents to completely control and frame the debate, and, from a minority position legislation itself, on an issue as basic, and as much in need of at least some type of sensible reform, as health care itself – is a bit stunning.

But it’s not the end to it:

Guys – we can’t lose with this. The crazy thing is that they did it to themselves. Hoisted by their own unbridled greed. Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for this fan-freaking-tastic bit of political insight and winning way forward. Cheers.

Actually, a Supreme Court decision that gives unfettered political propaganda power to monied interests in the waning days of an election, is not only likely to be bad for Democrats, it is likely to only further this country’s slow movement to the right, as the Republican Party continues to get hijacked by its own right wing; and Democrats, politically, rather than properly defining it, continue to simply adjust to it, while much of the “left wing” of the Democratic Party, in trying to otherwise properly prevent this, continues to nevertheless exude contempt for everything else while continuing to impugn the very voters that need to be reached.

The abysmal Citizens United decision can be used as a rallying cry for those who want sensible government, a decrease in the influence of monied interests upon our already seemingly tainted election processes, and a check upon an increasingly ideological court system and increasingly ideological politicians willing to put firmly entrenched ideology ahead of broad based judicial temperance and jurisprudence in their judicial selections and approvals.

It can be used to give further evidence for the idea that this country needs to return to its roots of individual liberty– not government or corporate power over the hands of the individual — and true political discussion and debate underlying our democratic processes; rather than an open battle of dollars for ultimate control of our laws, and our land.

And it can be used to make the point that, so far unchecked by a rather timid, stenographic, and increasingly oligopolistic and corporate “Fourth Estate” media, and a Democratic Party that has ceded control of the framing to its opponents, the Republican Party itself has lost its roots, and is being increasingly led by an overly influential but small group of far right wing ideologues whose influence now clearly extends firmly all the way to our Supreme Court itself.

But it can only be used for these things, among other positive (and perhaps much better articulated) political formulations, if Democrats first recognize the need — something that they have not heretofore done — to more properly define themselves, their opponents, and the issues, stop taking for granted what they think people “know” or should know, and start selling and showing, rather than presuming, arguing, telling, or dismissing as “obvious” their ideas, the “facts,” or what are to them, their opponents flaws.

And of course, Democrats, the party of non organization, and often irrelevant but self destructive incidental infighting, arguing and mis-focus, would also need to become far better organized.  Even the wildly popular but halcyon diary piece on the Daily Kos took the time to at least note (emphasis added):

…if we organize properly.

However, given the apparent lack of recognition of these other key factors briefly suggested above, this is hard to fathom, particularly as Democrats themselves are apparently still taking notes on how to lose control of Congress when they have a substantial majority in both Houses, along with the support of the White House.

Little, apparently, was said with respect to the even more important idea of political messaging, and focus.

But in a world where all that is “bad” is so blindingly self obvious to all voters, who nevertheless continue to vote in seemingly troubling ways despite its odd coincidence to rhetoric and political propaganda that is similarly so “obvious” that it can largely be ignored or simply derided (as opposed to being successfully used to correctly define its promulgators), messaging and focus seem to be given rather short shrift by the Democratic Party, as well.

We will see what happens.

Hopefully my repeated points to EJ Dionne years ago, that opposition to ideological and extreme judicial appointments to our highest Courts by the minority party in power (call it the classically American principle of the power of the minority against the unfettered will of a misguided majority when circumstances warrant) is imperative in a free and robust democracy, not “obstructionism,” and that our Supreme Court was no more “balanced” than a McDonald’s happy meal, will start to take root. Perhaps not.

But either way, it is time to take a really good long hard look at where America is going, and how we got to where we are right now.

A lot of it has to do with simple framing, loss of true Fourth Estate media functions (for which the naturally self selecting, insular,and on political matters overly polarizing Internet is no substitute) and the continued taking for granted by the Democratic Party of what is “obvious” to people or the way that those who most need to be reached, must be seeing things.

And a lot of it has to do with “Fox” news. And, in keeping with the Democratic dismissive-ness and presumptuousness lightly referred to above, the Democratic Party’s underestimation of its role in our Democracy and public discussions, and in shaping and influencing our broader media itself.

But those are separate topics; just simply noted, here, for now.

Endnote:
[i] Some may incorrectly suggest that since Justice Kennedy, who served as a “swing” vote between two rather stark factions of the Court, is not necessarily an ideologue, that this analysis is incorrect. What is being missed here is the reason we have 9 Justices in the first place. With an ideologically extreme end of the Court, in many instances, rendered  This does not mean that a properly made up Court will not have 5-4 decisions. Of course it will on occasion. Again, that is why we have nine Justices, not one. It is just that under the correct scenario, those decisions will be close ones. This was not a close one. In this case the Court was effectively reduced to a single Justice, the conservative, but not necessarily radical ideologue, Anthony Kennedy. And Kennedy made a mistake, that happens to go in the direction, as is almost always going to be more likely than not when Kennedy does make a mistake, in the direction of his own political philosopy.  Thus in some instances not only have we rendered the Court down to one effective Jurist; we have, in those instances, rendered the Court, effectively down to one, conservative Jurist.  This is not to say that a centrist Jurist would not also make mistakes; it is to say that the original error is even further compounded by the fact that our at times one person de facto Supreme Court Justice, is clearly on one side of the political equation.

How did this come about? President Ronald Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia, a respected Jurist, who has proven to be a witty ideologue. George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, a firm ideologue who opposed affirmative action (rightly or wrongly, no opinion is expressed here), but whose opportunities in life were quite clearly crafted by a lifetime of affirmative action opportunities for him, and who received the lowest American Bar Association Rating for a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States. Then, with the Court already heavily stacking to the right, and in some ways the far right, George W. Bush, son of the first President Bush, appointed otherwise seemingly competent, but far right ideologues in Samuel Alito and in the eminently charming and polished John Roberts, who charmed the pants off of the Democratic contingent in Congress (who later went out as a group and  bought some ocean front investment property in Utah).

Neither of these last two appointments, despite the clear and almost extreme radical ideological tilt of the nominees, and the heavy imbalance on the Court already, were blocked by Democrats in Congress, who apparently went to the Hendrik Helzburg school of filibustering (and listened to the almost always non useful Washington Post) – noting it as a power that only legitimately extends to one’s opponents, who can either use it themselves, or threaten Democrats and basic Senate procedure itself when they even contemplate the idea.  (The infamous “Gang of Fourteen” — by which Senate Democrats gave up their inherent rights under a threat by Republicans to scutle 200 years of precedent by adhering to the Rules of the Senate as established by the Senate — then agreed upon a “plan” to avert the so called “nuclear option” whereby Democrats would agree to let Bush’s appointments go through unscathed, along with most of the previously filibustered non Supreme Court nominees themselves. Then of course there is the amazing “no spin” spin of the far right itself, where 90% control rather than 50/50 is not enough, which the media eats up hook line and sinker.)

The Supreme Court Gives Corporations the Rights, but not Responsibilities, of Individuals

The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, ruled on Thursday that corporations, profit and non profit, could not be proscribed from spending freely on what can accurately be described as both “speech’ or “propaganda” (depending upon one’s perspective) in the waning days of federal elections.

This decision turns an already overly money influenced system, into a veritable free for all of corporate and vested interests propaganda. It confuses Corporations with individuals. If confuses the notion of the Bill of Rights, written as an absolute check upon the power of government over the basic, inalienable rights of individuals in a free society, as an instrument of government restriction upon corporate power and control. And it confuses the notion of free speech expression, with the notion of corporate money expenditure — where the speech is no longer limited by the abilities or points of both speakers and their number, but by the amount of money that has been accumulated itself.

It may be one of the worst, and poorly reasoned, decisions of the Modern Era. [i]

Endnote:
[i]The only recent decision that comes close is Bush v. Gore, wherein at least it could be said, persuasively or not, that the election was a complete tossup anyway, the “hanging chad” determinations upon which it rested were potentially subjective, and America needed a president, not an ongoing protracted legal battle. That one may have changed the course of history —  but that is also mainly  the voters’ doing, when a mere few hundreds of votes separated the candidates from each other in the pivotal swing state of Florida, and the Democratic election worker created butterfly ballot travesty in Palm Beach County.  In addition, a recount was subsequently done of the “hanging chads themselves — the least relevant of three separate Florida voting issues, but the one that garnered he most attention and created the Supreme Court’s interest — and the same outcome, with Bush prevailing, was still reached.

“Sadomaschostic” Senate Procedures

A classic paragraph from Hendrik Helzberg’s Wednesday New Yorker column was examined here, offering up an  example of why Liberals are poor at politics, and don’t even seem to know it.

In the next paragraph from the very next piece, Helzberg teaches us about the “sadomasochistic” filibuster:

Thanks to my longstanding obsession with the obsolescence of our eighteenth-century political and electoral hydraulics (such as the separation of powers and the lack of a single government accountable to a national electorate) and this sclerotic system’s sadomasochistic twentieth-century refinements (such as the institutionalization of the filibuster), I am not astonished that Obama has had trouble “getting things done.”

And, immediately thereafter, he teaches us something even more extraordinary:

Absent only the filibuster—even while leaving untouched all the other monkey wrenches (committee chairs, corrupt campaign money, safe districts, Republicans, etc.)—Obama by now would have signed landmark bills addressing health care, global warming, and financial regulation, and a larger, better-designed stimulus package, too.

Let’s ignore for  now that ensuring the ability of the minority to serve as a check upon the otherwise unfettered and unrestrained will of the majority in select circumstances, is one of the most fundamental principles of a free and independent society.   What needs to be  focused on is this enormous oversight on the part of our Congressional rule proscribers, and its immediate, and absolute, correction.

Let’s put it as plainly as possible.  It was not right, it is not right now, and it never will be right, to have granted this great filibuster power — sadomasochistic or otherwise — to members of only one of our two major political parties, but yet not to the other. How this oversight occurred, is hard to imagine. But, clearly, seeing as it has, it simply must be corrected.Now.

That is, either the right to filibuster must be removed from Senatorial procedure immediately; or, the right must also be granted to members of the Democratic Party, for when they might be the minority party.

Otherwise, clearly, this is lopsided, anti democratic, and even repressive, politics.  For instance, just imagine, had this right extended to Democrats as well this past decade — when Democrats were in the minority — the bills and actions by Bush that might similarly have been prevented.

Lesson One: Learning How to Control Congress with a Minority

Today’s lesson plan is brought to you by the Republican Party of America.  It is designed to teach the other major political party in America, how to control Congress with a minority.

We interrupt this special presentation, with a special announcement, and question, from the Democratic Party.

Thank you very much for your assistance in teaching us how to control Congress with a minority.  We appreciate this very much, and it is truly something that we do want to learn. However, before you teach us this, can you please teach us how to control Congress with a majority and the White House?

Republican Party response: “That was whene we were in power over the past decade.   But don’t worry, if you didn’t take copious notes that time around, your opportunity will come soon enough again.”

Health Care Now or Else: How Some Democrats See It

(Update below)

Hendrik Helzberg’s recent “Beware of Sudden Downdrafts,” column in the New Yorker serves as a classic example of why Liberals are often horrific at politics. (The other half of the equation is the fact that they think they are good at it, and often tend to be extremely self righteous, defensive, and argumentative about this — usually with far more passion than for actually showing to the country why their policies or position on a particular issue is correct or important, which they far too often take for granted as being “self evident” along with all of the rhetoric that cuts against it “self evidently” irrelevant, when it is not.)

Helzberg:

Whether yesterday’s upset in Massachusetts turns out to be a catastrophe or merely a setback now depends largely on the grown-upness, or lack of it, of liberals in the House of Representatives. I don’t see any way out of the darkness right now other than for the House to tighten its stomach muscles, pass the Senate version of the health-care bill A.S.A.P., and move on to jobs and the economy. The Senate health-care bill, however inferior to the House version, is vastly superior to the status quo. The only alternative I can discern is no bill at all—a political, substantive, and humanitarian failure that would reverberate for a generation.

This is a popular theme. As many leading commentators and “bloggers” have noted, anybody who “knows anything” knows that if this is not passed right now, and with this bill, 1) it can not be passed, and 2) it can not be brought up again, 3) it if is nothing will get done, and 4) it can not be brought up for years (along some version or another of their opponents being able to otherwise irrelevantly say “ha, you tried it and it didn’t work, you can’t try it again.”)

What Democrats, and perhaps, in particular, some liberals, tend to miss is that while it is theoretically possible that this is true, it is only true because of one reason: Democrats allow it to be played out this way, which fits in precisely with how their opponents want it to be played out, and for no good reason.

That is, there is otherwise absolutely no reason otherwise for ANY of the impediments made up above, to be true. That is, if this bill is not passed; it can be passed later. It can be brought up again. Something can be done. The bill can be changed. The bill can be improved. The bill can be more effectively sold. Opponents to the bill can be more effectively framed — particularly if a better bill is passed, and the reasons why it is better focused on, sold, and repeatedly illuminated. (Instead of Democrats simply taking for granted that “everybody knows (or thinks) this” already.)

It all comes down to the reasons why, and more importantly, the reasons that are given and sold as to why.

If there is a need for the bill, which it seems that Liberals and most Democrats (and some Republicans in fact) believe there is — some very very strongly — then Democrats can pass a bill. A good bill. Having a quagmire because of misframing and opponent deception is not a reason to pass a a bad bill or stop and never re take up the process, it is a reason to take control of the debate, make the bill address the issues more sensibly, and sell the bill. If Democrats think it is a good bill right now (those that do), then the same arguments apply. Sell it. If it is a good bill, with a majority in the Senate, you can sell it. Martha Coakley is all but irrelevant.

That’s politics. It’s come down to numbers because Democrats haven’t worked to frame the issue, or control the debate, or concoct a bill that actually addresses the root of the problem, or show why, or address the real concerns that those opposed to reform have, or stop letting Republicans they disagree with dictate to them in Congress, by making a powerful and effective case against them, without simply belittling them as if it is all so “obvious” to everybody.

What is expressed in Helzburg’s column above is pure abject defeatism. And it is exhibit A in why and how Democrats now almost always allow their opponents to control the debate.

Update: From the super popular online Daily Kos website, a recommended front page piece with about 400 recommends, 580 comments (and counting), February 1, 2010.  This title is mostly metaphor, and a little bit of hyperbole; but it’s not satire, and is in support: Ezra Klein: It’s this bill, or everybody dies.

Goverment Infiltration, “Good Intentions” and our Founding Principles of Government

A recent post on ELA looked at a noted liberal magazine’s blog coverage of a recent John Yoo interview with Jon Stewart, and some points that the magazine’s blog apparently did not feel comfortable allowing its censored readers to see.

Namely, it was suggested therein that John Yoo’s “theory” of Executive power (which drove Bush Administration policies) rendered our Constitution, and its system of checks and balances, essentially moot at the President’s discretion, which was exactly what our Constitution was created in the first place to prevent. It was also suggested that Democrats — most of whom, along with some conservatives, opposed Yoo’s radical theories — did not do a very good job approaching, framing, communicating on, or controlling the issue.

To wit:

..I asked..some media sources to ..come up with one person who could articulate a cohesive theory as to how Yoo’s theory of unilateral presidential discretion even in the face of existing congressional statute and the Bill of Rights in the name of national security would not equally apply to anything else that the president [unilaterally] decided to do, no matter how outrageous, in the name of national security…

No one answered. And I still have not seen an answer. But perhaps if I had some backing on that, instead of all the normal Democratic presumptuousness about what people know, and how the media doesn’t matter or can’t be changed, or how Republicans are “evil,” it could have [been turned into] a public issue instead of the inanities and falsities that the media [has]covered this with….

Along with the noted irony that yet another guest interviewed by Stewart could and should have a similar question put to him regarding the heart of his framing on a critical issue, and the suggestion that showing and supporting the case  is more effective than simply impugning Yoo, or others, with ill motivations, this was something that apparently the censors at the Liberal American Prospect blog “Tapped” did not want their readers to see.

But the question I put for Yoo and the media, still remains relevant today, and as we move forward in history. If the President does have the unilateral discretion to act in contravention of the will of the people as expressed through Congress in the first place (or in contravention of the inherent rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights), what then acts as a check upon it? The determination, after the fact, by “us” that it was “too much”? Didn’t we just do that through Congress, or through the Bill of Rights? Yes, we did. Thus wouldn’t that negate the basic purpose of the Constitution, to prevent precisely the possibility of this type of unchecked, unilateral power, or “discretion” in the first place? Yes. It would.

But that is not the only threat to the basic principles of open, transparent, accountable, and checked government.

Typically such threats seem to come more from the right than the left. Several noted authors have suggested, very credibly, that one of the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans is their tendency to accept and even support a greater form of authoritarianism, counter intuitive as this seems to be from a right wing that always seems to be screaming about “big government” while often working hard to give it yet ever more powers, save for the sensible power to regulate to ensure we have true capitalism, and not oligopoly, and to safeguard what we must — along with national defense – all share together; namely, our environment.

But not always.

Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald points out some chilling examples of John Yoo like thinking from the middle Left; whereas, just as with the case of Yoo, all matters of unchecked, “trust us” form of goverment power and even, in the case of this suggestion, outright deception, are good so long as the “intentions” are good. Namely, a suggestion that our government infiltrate what it clandestinely determines to be ‘conspiracy groups” (at least to start, one presumes), covertly, as ostensible sympathizers, in order to teach them.

Our country was founded upon a complete system of checks and balances, and upon a revulsion to the idea of a government of unchecked, or deceptive, yet “good” intentions. In the comment that was blocked by the American Prospect magazine, Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote was duly noted: “In questions of power then, let no more be heart of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ”

In some ways, what top Obama confidante Cass Sunstein advocated, is more radical that what Yoo — the near Demon to the American Prospect — has advocated.

As I wrote Greenwald a few days ago:

[This] undermines the very foundation of our government (based upon the opposite principle of a “trust us” form of government, and the exact opposite of what Sunstein proposed.) Just imagine a Bush administration with such infiltration methodologies. But what Sunstein and others miss (consider Orwell’s Animal Farm) is that ultimately it doesnt matter. It is the nature of people, and the nature of power, even well intentioned power, that as it [occasions] further and further wrong, it still believes that it is well intentioned.

Some have argued that the point of George Orwell’s Animal Farm was that intentions don’t work when greed and ignorance take root. But that is not the ultimate point. Those bad intentions are almost never present initially, and often the traits themselves are lacking when idealism seeks to institute government based upon good intentions, rather than upon full openness, transparency, and process.

The results manifest themselves, by the nature of mankind, when one group unchecked decides what is best for others and has power over them. Government propaganda is not much different. And government propaganda veiled as confidante insider expression to whatever “the government” deems bad or unacceptable, is perhaps a perfect example of precisely this.

Perhaps if we had a better discussion about Yoo’s radical theories, we could have a better discussion about Sunstein’s extremist idea of the goverment sending undercover propagandists to covertly infiltrate what the government considers extremist or unfounded conspiracy groups, and disseminate propaganda out to them as confidantes.

As an alternative, here is a suggestion for the Obama administration, and for the present Congress: A democracy requires good information to work. Non democracies present the false appeal of seemingly well intentioned or “sensible” heavy handed, and possibly self corrupting and unchecked Government tactics. It is what Yoo advocated; it is what Sunstein advocated. Work on fixing our media instead, starting with rigorously enforcing media anti trust laws, and advocating and passing stronger ones.

Nowhere is the fundamental, overriding principle of capitalism — pure competition and not oligarchy or unchecked replication — more important in a democracy, than when it comes to questions of the media itself. The media is our Fourth Estate. Even consider another Jefferson principle: “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.”

Obama himself seems to recognize this idea. At the White House Correspondents Dinner last spring, he repeated this very line from Jefferson about newspapers (or what they represent) being more important than government itself. And if it’s more important than government itself, or even remotely close, we should focus on fixing it.

Government substituting for it, on the other hand, let alone clandestinely, and subversively countering what government itself perceives to be misinformation, is exactly the opposite of what Jefferson had in mind. And the exact opposite of what a free, open, and transparent democracy requires.

It is probably also likely the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our government, and what, along with suggestions like those of Yoo, they likely feared the most. And for good reason.

We need to revisit those reasons. We can start, with a consideration of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” followed next by this same author’s even more famous work, “1984.”

NY times commentator Paul Krugman, or others, may argue, as Krugman essentially did about Greenwald regarding a related, but lesser, point, that this is essentially over dramatizing the issue, particularly since the intentions are good. (Note, this is conjecture, and it is likely I am wrong about Krugman specifically here — only he can answer that — but certainly others would argue that bringing up “Animal Farm” or “1984″ is over hyping what is merely a program to provide [what is in the governments unchecked, and secretive view] “better information” while essentially infiltrating groups it clearly deems problematic due to ideas.)

But that is like saying that our Founding Fathers overdramatized when they created the Constitution and our system of government, for the reasons that they did in the first place. But more importantly, the idea of using such tactics for “good ends” is ultimately irrelevant. Governments for the most part do not choose to be evil. The entire point of a free and open society is to prevent even the opportunity for those in power, for “good intentions” or otherwise, to be able to choose what is and isn’t, good, bad, or evil, and pursue those ends counter to the open processes that our government is correctly built upon.

Again, Jefferson famously stated “let no more be heart of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Similarly, let no more be heard of government actors “good intentions,” but bind them down from unchecked authority to make such determinations unilaterally, by the open, transparent, and disclosed processes upon which our democracy and system of government correctly rely.

A Question for John Yoo, and American Prospect Censorship?

The recent appearance of Bush DOJ attorney John Yoo on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” sparked some rather lively and interesting discussion, including on the American Prospect’s “group blog, “Tapped.” Some of that discussion, along with Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s success, and how it contrasts with much of the popular media today, was briefly reviewed here.

But one comment that readers of the American Prospect’s blog post on John Yoo won’t see, is the following, reproduced below in full, and completely unedited, form. Why American Prospect readers won’t see it on the AP blog comment discussion thread, perhaps only the Magazine itself can answer, as the comment was blocked from publication.

This seems to raise legitimate questions of Left-Wing discussion censorship.  The comment was not vulgar. It provided a question for both Yoo, and for the media to ask Yoo, that goes to the heart of Yoo’s theory on what is in some ways unbridled Executive Power.

The second thing that the comment did, was suggest that the Left had done a particularly poor job of framing the discussion, and directing and managing the debate regarding the very legitimate, if not extremely troubling issues that the institutionalization of some of Yoo’s more radical theories during the Bush Administration in fact raised.  And again, the comment with this suggestion was blocked, by a leading magazine of the “Left.”  The American Prospect blog post chastised Stewart for doing a poor job challenging or out debating Yoo, but this random comment to that blog raising a similar point about the “Left’s” general response to the institutionalization and promulgation of Yoo’s theories during the Bush presidency, was apparently not acceptable.

Since the point of the AP blog post was to criticize comedian Jon Stewart for failing to do a “better job” against, as two commenters put it, a “powerful and brilliant lawyer,” “over a topic on which Yoo wrote the definitive brief,”  the comment also provided a segue-way into a very brief reference to another guest whom Stewart actually (and very uncharacteristically) did a rather poor job with, which did not involve the sometimes tricky and abstract world of Constitutional law.  It referenced an economics debate challenge to that same guest — whose conventional theories and facts on the economic presumption of cost, along with his unconventional theories that addressing climate change by changing over from the processes contributing to it is a bad solution — went both unchallenged, and even unquestioned by Stewart.

Thus, third, and lastly, and similar to the idea that Yoo really has not been fundamentally questioned on the very heart of his assertion of Executive power (see comment below), this somewhat recent Jon Stewart guest, Steven Levitt, has also not been fundamentally questioned.  Thus, the comment also referenced the parallel lack of effective questioning, and indirectly and briefly, the public question posed for Levitt. The parallels are rather stark, if not striking. And they were both instances were Stewart, again somewhat uncharacteristically, either did a subpar job (in the case of Levitt) or was thought by many to have done so (as in the case of this popular American Prospect blog post, and at least some of the commenters therein).

But for the obvious parallel to the open heart of the matter question to both Levitt, and John Yoo — both interviewees on the Daily Show where Stewart was uncharacteristically soft or less well informed — the rest of the comment below was directly about Yoo. That is, it was directly about the focal point of the American Prospect blog column and discussion.  And it focused on the heart of what is ultimately the most important Yoo theory for our constitutional form of government, and one that only mirrors if not builds upon the underlying concern of both the American Prospect blog post and comment threadregarding the influence of Yoo’s theories.  Yet it was still blocked:

My question for Yoo still remains: I asked those who knew Yoo, and some media sources, to either ask Yoo, or come up with one person who could articulate a cohesive theory as to how Yoo’s theory of unilateral presidential discretion even in the face of existing congressional statute and the Bill of Rights in the name of national security would not equally apply to anything else that the president decided to do, no matter how outrageous, in the name of national security — thereby essentially undermining perhaps the most basic purpose of the Constitution in the first place.

No one answered. And I still have not seen an answer. But perhaps if I had some backing on that, instead of all the normal Democratic presumptuousness about what people know and how the media doesn’t matter or can’t be changed, or how Republicans are “evil,” it could have turned it into a public issue instead of the inanities and falsities that the media [has] kind of turned it into when it [has] covered this and related Constitution topics — and we might have better laws and a stronger, freer and more constitutionally sound democracy today.

One big mistake that is made is to simply presume as if Democrats always know that the far right has to be driven by evil motivations, the Yoo is not acting in Good faith.

This last sentence was even more relevant, not just to the general polarizing nature of online discussion, but to the short American Prospect blog post itself, which asserted “Stewart allowed Yoo to maintain the illusion that he was a good faith actor simply doing his job” (not to mention that one of the comments directly linked to above that otherwise made a very good point about Yoo, also openly called him “evil”), as if the possibility that Yoo simply believes his position can not even be reasonably entertained.

This latter thought — that it is not reasonable to think that Yoo might believe in what he is saying — is exactly what many on the Left may say, and is perhaps a big part of the reason why the Left rarely reaches outside of its own choir in connecting with America, other than on issues where the public is otherwise already set in their direction.  In other words, “everybody already sees it” like the Left does. And if they don’t, there must be something wrong with those people, or they must be innately evil or bad faith actors.  But raise that point — a point to which many on the moderate right, middle in America today say “halelujah” to — and the “thoughtful” American Prospect might block your comment.

The comment continues, all emphasis here added:

Perhaps (well, definitely), Yoo has different beliefs than our Founding Fathers, and since no one has yet even publicly put the above question to him, instead just calling him all sorts of names, it is likely that this is the way that he sees the world. But whether he does or he doesn’t, wouldn’t it be better to stop assuming that Yoo is evil or a knowing liar, which does nothing to convince or show those that otherwise don’t already fully think Yoo is nuts, and instead address and constantly SHOW in a non presumptive way why Yoo (or anybody else) is in fact profoundly wrong, or, if you like, worse?

In Yoo’s case, it is particularly important, because many of the things that he has seemingly rationally advocated (hey, he almost convinced Stewart) in fact are apt (if early) illustrations of exactly what our Founding Fathers set up the Constitution to prevent in terms of unchecked power.

Yoo is an authoritarian. Ultra. Yoo is radical. Yoo is completely at odds with our country’s founding principles. Yoo is a believer in true “big government.” Yoo believes that the purpose of government is to keep us safe above liberty and all else, when our country is founded upon the opposite — whereas repressive, cowardly and weaker countries are based upon this (or putting food on tables over all else) initially — and Yoo is a big believer in the “trust us” form of goverment, when ours was designed and created to quite specifically NOT BE a “trust us” form of government, and to prevent it from ever becoming one.

Show this stuff. These are not just liberal principles. They are moderate principles, and they are, to some extent also traditional conservative principles as well. (Particularly the idea that unchecked power corrupts: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”)

Stewart should not be expected to handle Yoo. On the other hand, someone whom he could have done a better job with howeover, could have been Steven Levitt. On that note,slight aside: My challenge to Levitt, incidentally. The more attention drawn to it, the more likely for Levitt to have to respond, and for us to open up a debate that this country must simply have, and that by having, we as a country can only gain.

Yes, certainly the type of thing that the American Prospect should protect its readers from having to see. And notice how the last very minor reference to Levitt — the only thing not directly on point — mirrors exactly what a big part of the problem with Yoo’s influence might be — that this issue was not publicly, and properly framed; so that now, instead, the American Prospect blog takes to expecting comedian Jon Stewart to correct it all and school one of the nation’s more brilliant (if radically right and pro government power) legal scholars.

The Left are no doubt their own worst enemies.  Remember, we are not talking about an op ed submission to the NY times here; but a random comment, on a random blog.  An open forum discussion. And for whatever arbitrary reason (“we don’t like two links,” “we don’t like comments that are too thoughtful or too provocative” or too this or too that or too whatever) it was blocked. All I can say is:  Thank God for the Left Wing American Prospect censors, doing what they do best, keeping the discussion “pure,” and venturing all the way into the throes of outright censorship in order to protect its readers from the annoyance or consideration of the quite obviously inconsequential points raised above.

And the beat goes on.