Why It’s Helpful to Move Past “Cash for Clunkers” Type Thinking on Automobiles

This was shared with a Senator (via Legislative aides) during the ‘cash for clunkers’ debate and bill presage last summer. It is posted here unedited, for reference, and because the analysis is increasingly relevant today.(A similar letter/analysis which complements it is here.)
____________

The claimed greenhouse gas and oil savings of S 1200 over the bill that passed, fully appropriated, represents .00746% of our net greenhouse gas emissions, and .035% of our total passenger vehicle oil use, based upon ‘06 figures. (Even less if we base it upon gross emissions of about a billion tonnes more.)

As transportation is responsible for around 68% of our oil use — with passenger vehicles responsible for around 61% of this (heavy trucks another 21% or so) — addressing oil reliance means addressing super high efficiency and alternative fuel vehicle transitioning. Similarly, vehicles are responsible for about a fifth of our CO2 emissions (17% give or take of total greenhouse emissions in CO2e) and play a rapidly increasing global role, particularly in India and China where, to have any diplomatic credibility on the issue, we have to become a leader on it.

This issue thus is ongoing. (And likely will come up in specific cash for clunker form in just a few months when the current 1 billion appropriation runs out.) Given vehicles’ overwhelming role in oil use, the best way toward meaningful progress on this is to frame the critical national security aspects. This will provide a means for powerfully reaching across the aisle — and, more importantly, getting most Americans on board, since almost all of us want to address climate change, stop importation from the Mid East, or both. National security, and its appeal to precisely the key climate change opponents that are critical to getting on your side, has been vastly under-emphasized, and underutilized.

I can not emphasize this enough. Some Democrats may or may not think oil reliance is a big deal. But what is necessary to consider is that many people in America do, inside of Congress and out. And often these are the same who may otherwise not be as open to climate change address — and sometimes even fight against it because of misperceived macroeconomic harm. And it’s certainly not a bad thing to get off of foreign oil. In fact, it’s smart. Now we have a means with one policy to solve everybody’s problem, and all get on the same page. That is, with respect to the vehicles we drive, the essence of it comes down to what most of us want — using far less oil.

It’s counter productive at this stage for us to be subsidizing the purchase of any new vehicles that don’t make significant steps toward oil and CO2 (and N2O) eradication, and which does not have the effect of further prompting the market in this direction. After the current minimal program funding expires, and we have tried to bolster sales, it will be more appealing to make the argument that it is time to support the growth of our economy in the direction of those productive capabilities that solve the increasing challenges we are facing — herein being national security compromising oil reliance and CO2 emissions — rather than continue to contribute as a root cause to them.

The key is promulgating the availability and development of vehicles that meet this goal. for example, Ford’s Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg. Replace an 18 mpg vehicle with a 65 mpg one, and over 12000 miles we will save 482 gallons of gas, and 9352 lbs. of CO2, for that one vehicle alone. This is the same as driving a vehicle that gets 35.5 mpg (2016 yr CAFE ave.), for 17,110 miles, using clean air as its fuel, and emitting nothing but clean air. As told to Business Week, however, there are no current plans to bring it to the U.S. because of no perceived demand, mainly because there is no market mechanism to price in the vast external costs of gasoline. (In pure economic terms, this amounts to an enormous gasoline subsidy.)

GM’s Chevrolet Volt gets a claimed 150+ mpg equivalent its first 40 miles after charge. (This is a sketchy figure in an inordinately complex and imprecise subject area, but the car under the right circumstances can achieve this equivalent, and much higher.) The 40 mile range is enough to cover most routine commutes and trips. It gets a more constant 48-50 mpg when running via gasoline generator thereafter.

The car’s emissions savings are harder to precisely calculate because of measurements in mpg equivalents and variability in how much it is driven above the 40 mile between charge cutoff. More important even, is the issue of electricity generation fuel source variability, and nighttime charging potential when power plants tend to otherwise overproduce. Thus,the vehicle can potentially use some fossil fuel produced electricity with minimal net CO2 emissions when plants, to keep from powering down (which is inefficient and so avoided), overproduce at night. Obviously, excess wind or hydro capability at night in certain regions would be the ideal, and amount to zero net emissions. In sum, the CO2 emissions improvement of the Volt should easily exceed that even of the ECOnetic, and can continue to improve as we move forward and provide viable energy alternatives.

If the average Volt runs one quarter of the time on gasoline (a fairly conservative estimate), The Volt would not only potentially have an exceptional per vehicle net emissions impact, but an extraordinary per vehicle oil impact. That is, eight Volts would likely use around the same oil, or less, in total than one 24 mpg vehicle. (And ten Volts would likely use around the same oil as one 20 mpg pick up truck or SUV.)

There are plenty of other “right direction” cars available or in production now — such as the stylish 62 mpg five seater Volkswagen BlueMotion Polo, the 70+ mpg four seat Peugeot HDi 308, the 65 mpg 3 + 1 Toyota iQ, the ostensibly 150-200+ mpg equivalent (hard to say though) Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the Volkswagen Up, the less appealing California based Coda (which is really a re tooled, China produced, Hafei), and the more expensive Tesla S, among others. But it is helpful to focus foremost on American vehicles when framing this, and also to stress the fact that most cars represent a composite of (international) inputs anyway. What is also key to remember, and properly frame, is that this is what the market has started to produce, without the proper incentives. [The market can, and will, do far better with the proper incentives. ]

The key consideration is not just to promote the movement toward purchase of these vehicles, but market development and emphasis in this direction. Throwing money at it or giving companies funds to “do this” can be semi wasteful, because while consumer preference can shift based upon manufacturer development, consumer choice is still the driving factor. More importantly, these same manufacturers, as history has shown us time and time again, while developing these “technologies” thus subsidized, will still market and aggressively push what they think consumers want.

Thus the bottom line is to develop policies that inspire the market itself to achieve this, which means both the supply and demand side of the equation. A high gasoline tax, with the revenue to be used as offsetting stimulus and low income, inelastic gasoline demand curve consumer hardship amelioration, would be most effective — but is politically unpalatable. (It is also seen as potentially inflationary, although that could be offset as well.) A Clunker subsidization program, that targets specifically the types of vehicles outlined above, would accomplish this also, and generate substantial economic growth all at the same time. And, properly framed, it can be sold across the aisle, and certainly to most of America, who when they get the bottom line numbers, want us to do this; oftentimes, overwhelmingly so.

He “Could” Have Had Other Issues — Like Maybe Extreme, Psychopathic Beckism?

New Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown:

You don’t know anything about the individual. He could have had other issues. Certainly, no one likes paying taxes, obviously.

He could have had other issues.

Brown, as part of his same answer:

They want us to help solve the problems that are affecting Americans in a very real way.

They are angry at the government for not “solving problems.”

Let’s take the following, unfortunately, non longer hypothetical situation — the very same one to which the new Massachusetts Senator was referring:

Man is angry at IRS.  Man burns down his house (where his wife and daughter live), on purpose. Man flies his airplane into an IRS building killing and wounding innocent people – sort of like al-Qaeda did in New York and Washington D.C., in 2001.  But, thank God, with far fewer casualties.  Scott Brown’s response?  ”People are angry.”  ”They want us to help solve problems.”   “He could have had other issues.”

The Dallas Morning News Reports:

Stack apparently set fire to his house in Austin and posted a long anti-government screed on the Web. It had Thursday’s date and was signed “Joe Stack (1956-2010).”

In it, the author cited run-ins he had with the IRS and ranted about the tax agency, government bailouts and corporate America’s “thugs and plunderers.”

“I have had all I can stand,” he wrote, adding: “I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at ‘big brother’ while he strips my carcass.”

Is there any chance this person did not listen to a lot of Glenn Beck?  Read about what Beck is really telling people, while arrogant and privileged pundits, who have little clue what is going on in Middle America, while ironically scolding other arrogant elitists, scoff at his influence or importance. Here is Beck, the same person whom the Washington Post promoted, as just another informed, “common sense” thinker:

Beck: “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.”[xii]

Beck, further back, “I want to kill [Rep.] Charlie Rangel with a shovel,” several times.

…[Beck] – playing out a mock poisoning of Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and stating he was thinking about doing just that…”“every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames”…..he even poured pretend gasoline (water) out of a gas can onto a guest, and held up a lit match to simulate what he suggested President Obama was doing to the American people…

…[Obama's] “letting the terrorists onto the streets!”

[Showing a picture of Obama and other Democrats made to look somewhat ghoulish] “…These bloodsucker vampires are not gonna just be satisfied with sucking the blood out of (business),  their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop… Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or ya drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers“…

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. … And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”…

““Gun sales are going through the roof,” because “…a lot of Americans aren’t paying attention to this…the poem…first they came for the Jews and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Jew? ….in the end, I think this is the problem. First, they came for the banks. I wasn’t a banker….I didn’t stand up and say anything. Then they came for the AIG executives….Then they came for the car companies — and I didn’t say anything………Until it gets down to you — most people don’t see they are coming for you at some point.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg for Beck. Riling up hatred, and blatantly misinforming people left and right,

The way to fight encroaching  Big Brother is to work for limits on corporate power, work for better and more accurate information, work against misinformation, work for transparency and accountability in government, work for increased, rather than continually decreasing privacy rights, and work to increase checks upon government and majority power. Many of those who are complaining about government the most, have been the more active supporters of the opposite of many of these same things — particularly when it comes to unchecked, government power, and civil liberties.

But this American, non Islamic Terrorist, suicide airplane bomber named Andrew Stack thought Big Brother “stripped” his carcass. This person who had a tax issue (who apparently wanted to use his home as a church deduction) thinks, or thought, everything he did, he did himself?  He never drove on roads built by others? Attended schools built by others?  Enjoyed the freedom of a country protected by a military, composed of others? He never sold, bought, or used a product that depended upon the creation of wealth from millions before him, and millions other during his own time here?  He lived in a vacuum?   Even the plane he flew, he  built from scratch, from materials he created out of tree branches in his back yard, after figuring out how to build an airplane, and also how to fly, himself, just like the Wright Brothers did, right?

NO. Perhaps he purchased the airplane.  And he was able to make the money to buy it because of his own efforts, and the efforts of everyone else, now, and before him.  Not in a vacuum.  And he was able to buy it because of the efforts of others;  to be able to build it, to be able to create and gather the materials and technology to build it.  And for the knowledge of others to build it. Just like almost everything he probably ever did outside of the the one thing that the same far right seems to rail against — relate to nature and the outdoors, smell fresh, unpolluted air, dive into unpolluted waters, gaze across unpolluted vistas, eat unpolluted food.  Pretty much everything else, aside from the other things that matter most besides justice — friendship, family, love — evolved with and from the multiple efforts of others, creating, working, laboring striving, both before him and contemporaneously.

This is not a brief screed against individualism or individual liberty.  This is one of the more pro individualism and individual liberty websites on the web.  But it is a brief screed against anarchy.  The idea that we all do things in a vacuum, is a fiction. A sad fiction. Yet we want Washington to “butt out” when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals from the potential infringements by others (or, sometimes, perhaps for better reasons, but those seem to be more classically Liberal causes today), but help “solve our problems” at the same time.

We all benefit (and, in some ways, are harmed) by the efforts and productivity of those who came before us, and who exist with us now.  It can’t be any other way.  If mankind truly were Angels, it might be that way.  But we would have no reason for government. No form, no order, we would all be perfect beings.  (And there would be less purpose in existence — everything would already be perfect, the unattainable, that toward which we strive, measuring our success by some barometer of what we think it might be, and how far off from it we are.)  But it doesn’t work that way. We’re human, not Angels painted on a canvas come to life.

This is brief screed against blatant misinformation, propaganda, scapegoating, and hatred.  Because that is blinding us to the threat of actual encroaching government power, while scapegoating only those we disagree politically, or “government” itself — whenever it is a government, it seems, that we did not vote for — for all fears, real and imagined.

As the third comment quoted here, notes:

…It’s interesting that this movement was quiescent during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the federal government clearly violated people’s civil rights…

Think back to 1995, when the deadliest act of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a member of a militia, he was partial to libertarianism, he blamed the federal government for just about everything wrong with society…

Or think back even farther. In the 1920’s there was a certain political party that started out in Bavaria. A grass-roots party when it started, it attracted people who hated the federal government, and who were partial to conspiracy theories especially ones about Jews. It had no clear leadership until an enterprising fellow named Adolf Hitler came along. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Think this is a complete fiction? Here’s a random comment from the Seattle Post Intelligencer link above going over Brown’s statements:

Posted by unregistered user at 2/18/2010 5:14 p.m.

Deceptive choices – you have been getting lessons from capital hill.

My selection: He isn’t rationalizing it, he’s trying to understand it.

We all should. Just because you can understand or empathize with someone doesn’t mean you justify their decision as rational. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Brown was trying to undersand his actions.  People are “frustrated with Washington” (what else is new), so he flew an airplane, in a suicide bomb attack, much like Al-Qaeda did, into a building filled with innocent people. Now Brown understands it.  People are frustrated with Washington. But overseas, people of course are not frustrated with America.  Then there’s the far more troubling “emphasize” suggestion:

Emphasize with someone? He emphasizes with someone who purposefully flew an airplane into a building, murdering and maiming innocent people? What do we think about people overseas that emphasize with al-Qaeda?

America better wake up, or Glenn Beck will be right about one thing, that ironically, our collective (and, most notably, media) acceptance of his ignorance and hate filled rhetoric is contributing to; America will unravel from the inside.  Exactly what al-Qaeda — which, also ironically, is an overseas Middle Eastern version of conservatism taken to extremes — wants.

New York Times Blindly Plays Right into Tea Party Rhetoric, Media Abandoning Principles Contributing to Problem

(Updated below)

In a feature piece yesterday by David Barstow, the New York Times blindly plays into Tea Party rhetoric. And then in yet another display of ridiculous “false balance,” highlights the very first comment to the piece, which itself plays into the rhetoric far, far more zealously:

What a great article — very informative…

…These people, though, if they are the way you describe them, seem much more progressive in their views toward individual rights vs. government than any of the self-proclaimed “progressives” of whom I am aware.

I will start paying much closer attention. I might have just found a new political home.

In stark contrast, consider these recent questions regarding the same Tea Party movement:

The funny thing is Tea Partiers say they are for more freedom, but most of the real threats to freedom — creeping authoritarianism; an expectation that people are the same or similar; distrust of differences; condemnation of different views as unpatriotic, or, worse, as “traitors;” an increase in unchecked governmental power over citizens; an increasing governmental intrusion into both privacy and the morality of individuals; a continual evisceration of privacy rights and of course calls for a national ‘Id’ card, etc.; an increasingly powerful, creeping corporate oligopoly; an abominable and somewhat radical recent Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the dollar purchased speech rights of private citizens plus even more at the expense of actual, meaningful, individual free speech; sweeping security checks and procedures based solely upon religion or race; etc. – are advocated or supported by a majority of the so called “Tea Party” movement.

At least the newspaper didn’t block the following comment (like voodoo climate author Steven Levitt’ did on his Times blog column as noted here), one that raises a question that still begs an answer: Why was the following ridiculously misleading reference, among others, included in the Times piece?

“Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member.”

That rings a little hollow. I have yet to meet a Tea Party member who doesn’t seem to despise the ACLU. (Though I am sure there are some.) The unrecognized hypocrisy is only scantily referenced by the note on the “relative passivity” through the Bush years, a far more imperial, more autocratic, far more intrusive, and a far more constitutionally violating, presidency than the current administration.

And Glenn Beck? That’s who you note many Tea Partiers are getting their information and spirit from? Maybe one of the biggest propagandists in the Western world since Benito Mussolini, and at any rate one of the most profoundly misinformed, wildly misleading, and exceedingly inflammatory voices of the modern age?

The real questions that need to be asked of and about the Tea Party movement, where a lot of well meaning people may be being mislead, a lot of rhetoric is exceedingly far from the reality, all while there is a lot of misplaced anger and misinformation brewing. (Just see link above about Beck lest you have doubts, as obviously, many who listen to Beck must.)

Some may argue that the Obama Administration is not “far more constitutionally violative,” just “more constitutionally violative.”  But the points above all stand.  As do perhaps some of the potentially more chilling points made by yet another Times reader:

Is the tea party movement just a folksy grass-roots movement or is there something more dangerous brewing here? Apparently tea party activists are motivated by a fear that the federal government is too big and too intrusive. Many tea-partyers are libertarians and some are attracted to the militia movements. The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge are often mentioned.

It’s interesting that this movement was quiescent during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the federal government clearly violated people’s civil rights. It was only after the first black president in history was elected that this movement, which exclusively attracts white people, really got going.

Think back to 1995, when the deadliest act of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a member of a militia, he was partial to libertarianism, he blamed the federal government for just about everything wrong with society and guess what? The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge were major motivations for his act.

Or think back even farther. In the 1920’s there was a certain political party that started out in Bavaria. A grass-roots party when it started, it attracted people who hated the federal government, and who were partial to conspiracy theories especially ones about Jews. It had no clear leadership until an enterprising fellow named Adolf Hitler came along. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Unfortunately many times more people will read author David Barstow’s false balance and far right kowtowing Tea Party fluff piece, than some random comments.  And that fluff piece is in the New York Times:  ”Fair and balanced” coverage of the Tea Party movement disconnect between assertion and actual fact is often worse elsewhere.

A few things to add here:  First, it is not only a black president, it is a moderate, rather than right or far right wing President (not withstanding that Tea Partiers are convinced he is a “socialist”) who also just happens to be black, and, even less coincidentally, a Democrat.

Second is that these are loose, and potentially somewhat unfair connections, by and of themselves. The real problem is the excessive rhetoric, and its often enormous disconnect with reality. This is something that the media, as exemplified by this leading Times story, is not serving as a check upon, but often as a simple parroting stenographer for.

Third, is a statement I would again reiterate, famously made by the late Louisiana Governor Huey Long.

Fascism, shall come, in the name of Anti Fascism.

As the Times piece noted (emphasis added):

That is often the point when Tea Party supporters say they began listening to Glenn Beck. With his guidance…

Glenn Beck. Here (again, see middle portion) is just a synopsis as of last summer (Beck’s gotten even worse since) of some of the profoundly ignorant, outrageously hypocritical, highly inflammatory, and incredibly misleading assertions an obviously spintastic Glenn Beck has foistered upon both himself, and an increasingly angry listening public – not angry at Beck for misleading them, but angry at others, and other things, real and, often imagined, because of Beck.

That Person.  The person who expresses more anti Fascism fervor — almost everyone who disagrees with Beck is a “Nazi,” by the way — than perhaps anybody in America. And who exhibits many of its underlying tendencies.

Refer back to the famous quote by Huey Long, above, “fascism shall come, in the name of anti-fascism.” Consider last comment block quoted just above. Apply.

Many Tea Partiers are no doubt well meaning, and very earnest, and maybe not always radical right wing folks.  But when the gap between rhetoric and reality gets as large as it is becoming today, and the biggest purveyor of that gap in the United States becomes the de facto leader or “inspiration,” it should be a wake up call to Democrats, Liberals, Independents, Moderate Republicans, and in particular the media, that something simply has to be done in this country to start to lessen the growing gap between rhetoric and reality. A vibrant and secure democracy simply can not function this way.

Maybe it would be helpful, if instead of a kowtowing fluff piece, the New York times engaged in actual journalism, and did a real piece on the issue. But then, some suggest (including myself), it is the breakdown in our media’s role as a Fourth Estate check that, more than anything else, is enabling this increasingly large disparity between rhetoric and fact in America today, and which is, in many ways, starting to become a mirror of it.

It’s not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said that given a choice between having government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, he would “not hesitate” to choose the latter. And he was not talking about simply shouting out in the village square — a vital and separate right also guaranteed by the First Amendment.  (And which today, in its modern technological equivalent, is reflected in the increasing prevalence of Internet “information and opinion” sites and reliance, that ironically enough, because of its ease and immediacy, is serving as a further threat to the media itself) . But it has no check upon it.

As I noted here (also on the New York Times site):

People shouting out in the village square is a key part of democracy, and clearly protected under the First Amendment. But it’s not journalism, and it’s not a substitute for the Fourth Estate.

Despite the fact that the Internet does bring excellent access to information (both correct and incorrect), it is still really nothing more than the modern high tech version of the village square.

And as such popularity and popular will and opinion are in effect tending to serve, more than anything, as the determiner of what is “right” or correct, even when it comes to objective facts — whereas in reality, popular opinion is often wrong, and can not serve as a check upon itself. It is why a fourth estate was so vital.

As these two – a fourth estate merging into just a more sophisticated if not as polarizing version of a parroting stenographer, and a (Internet) popularity arbiter of what is news and what is important and what gets read — merge, we are gradually losing the essence of this critical Fourth Estate check that Thomas Jefferson once thought even more important than government itself.

We are beginning to see the results of this:  With people who say they are for less government intrusion, more individual liberty, yet who actually tend to despise the ACLU; who say they want strict adherence to the “Constitution” yet in most cases supported a Bush Administration that was not only imperial, highly secretive, and completely lacking in accountability, but which employed an extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of the Constitution which gives the Executive the Unilateral Discretion to do whatever he/she wants in the name of “national security,” obviating the basic reason our Constitution was designed in the first place, and exactly what our Founders feared in motivating them to create it; people who say the are for individual liberty and less government services, but who suddenly only rose up in outspoken, and often demonizing anger, after a far right administration left the White House, and was replaced by a moderate Democratic Administration. People who in many cases, are taking up arms, and supporting militias. Not against an autocratic governmental regime, but because what was an increasingly autocratic leaning government regime, has just been replaced by a far more moderate one.  Whom a certain individual has nevertheless convinced many people is “coming after” them.

People who are being led by one of the most manipulatively misinformed, misleading, demonizing, and inflammatory voices in a long, long time. Glenn Beck.

With this person, another world class expert in rhetoric and little else, as their Keynote speaker.
____________

Update: The Cato Institute continues to sometimes kid itself: A few days ago, Vice President Gene Healy writes:

Anyone who’s been to a Tea Party rally knows this is no Astroturf movement. These are ordinary citizens, rightly furious that the federal government has sold the country a junk mortgage on its future, sticking America with an unsustainable debt.

They may be “ordinary citizens.”  But with Glenn Beck as perhaps the prime instigating force — as even the fluffy New York Times article above supports — and with Sarah Palin perhaps not far behind, these are ordinary citizens who have been greatly mislead and have a lot of illusions regarding political processes in America.

Government debt is what they say is a lot of the “fury;” but which programs are they advocating to be cut? And they are more furious about “pork”?  In the middle of the night several years back, after the Bush Administration’s Medicare Administrator (Tom Scully) threatened the program’s chief actuary if he shared his true cost estimates with Congress, one of the biggest corporate handouts in the history of the world was occasioned. At taxpayer expense.

That medicare “prescription drug plan” within just fourteen months of its original passage, was expected to cost well over a trillion dollars.  Most other pork complained about is barely even noticeable in comparison, combined.   Where was the outrage over a one trillion dollar giveaway — count to a thousand, that is how many billions are in a trillion — to corporate interests, at taxpayer expense. Where was the outrage?

To make matters worse, the Bush Administration did it by misleading Congress, as even some leading Republicans have complained about. Where was the outrage?  Where were the Tea Parties?

The closest thing we had to Tea Parties before today — one could call the outrage leveled against the Clinton Administration the tea party precursor — was during the Clinton Administration — an Administration that inherited absolutely gargantuan budget deficits, and enabled by favorable productivity gains due to the widespread implementation of computer technology along with sensible fiscal policies, left the incoming Bush Administration with a surplus.

Whether it is a good idea or a bad one (thought most economists fully urged this action), the current spending at least had the stimulus angle and a belief that this country was in dire economic times.  Where was this outrage when the Bush Administration was doubling our historical outstanding national debt at a time when total military and national security spending was still lower (percentage wise, the only measurement that matters) than during any decade but one in the past half a century?  When the Bush Administration was literally shredding the basic preventative purposes of the Constitution, rendering it void at the Executive’s discretion and thus Articles I and II essentially voluntary?

In the second paragraph Healy does briefly note at least part of this seeming “oddity.” (Which, if one understands the tea party, and the true motivations and mis-perceptions behind it, is really no oddity at all):

Yet there are those who doubt the new activists’ sincerity, asking, in effect, “Where were you when George W. Bush was spending faster than Lyndon Johnson?” It’s a fair question.

It’s also one, among others, that Healy never answers.

The answer can be found, in the post above.  And in the ravings of Glenn Beck, and others.  And in the media kowtowing to this, with, title aside, absurdly fluffy pieces, and the even more inane mainstream media liberals’ blinding dismissal of it all.

I’ve emailed Healy and invited him to comment on the above post, including this update.

Palin’s Blinding Hypocrisy, and the Tea Party “Platform”

A recent post illustrated the frightening yet typical hypocrisy of former half term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as she called for Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to be fired for calling a liberal pro health care reform attack ad strategy “f**king retarded” (based on his use of the word “retard,” in a private meeting), yet initially had no problem with, and even said she “agreed” with, Rush Limbaugh when Limbaugh also used the word, and called liberals themselves, “retards,” multiple times, publicly.

Which brings up a more fundamental, and troubling point, on this very same issue of unrecognized hypocrisy and Tea Partiers, who recently held a convention where none other than this same Sarah Palin was the Keynote speaker.

While perhaps not as blatant as Palin’s absurd triple standards,  the main Tea Party “message” also has an element of unrecognized, and much more troubling, hypocrisy to it.  A hyprocrisy that is causing many to overlook that the main Tea Party message is misleading to both Tea Partiers themselves, and to most of America.

It also goes to the heart of what America either is, or isn’t, all about: Freedom, liberty, and in the case of the Tea Partiers claims, less government.  Does less government just mean less regulation that actually protects individual rights more than it protects unfettered corporate rights, less spending on help for the unfortunate in a society, and more of everything else, including unchecked governmental power, intrusion, and moral and social preaching, if not prescription — things that have no place in a truly free society?

Consider again Palin a  few days ago saying she “agrees” with Rush Limbaugh very non satirically and publicly calling a broad group “retards” multiple times over, while calling for Rahm Emanuel’s firing because Emanuel in a closed door strategy session referred to an ad campaign strategy itself as “f*’g retarded.” There is not much better example than that this so called “freedom beacon” Sarah Palin is actually invoking such speech control based upon her own, subjective, selectively imposed, and extreme interpretations as to call for somebody’s firing for the simple use of a common figure of speech used to denote foolishness, that in other, far more extreme, pejorative, direct and public employments was (originally, until it was pointed out to her), perfectly fine to Palin.

That’s the world view that imposes something entirely different, rather than the same set of rules, conditions and expectations, based upon one’s own subjective view of things, no matter how disparate.  In a nutshell, that is the initial basis for any type of fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian rule. It’s okay if we do it. It’s a crime, or worse,  if anybody else does, and let’s base our policies, the country, and sometimes in the Tea Partiers’ case, our hatred, upon that unrecognized dualism.

Palin started off her Tea Party speech by stating “Don’t you just love America!?”  Everyone it seemed screamed yeah out loud (again, see video clip provided courtesy of the Daily Show).

But what is it that Tea Partiers (a few of whose espoused, rather than seemingly practiced, principles, I might agree with) love about America?

Is it our founding principles?  Most of those are slowly falling by the wayside to far right powerful government ideology.

Is it the idea of a robust Fourth Estate? That has been routinely lambasted and torn apart by the far right in this country except in those instances where it simply resembles exactly what one wants to hear, and in the manner it wants to hear it, cleverly couched as “fair and balanced” news, as the Fox Channel does presently, and what is in fact the opposite of an independent, robust, investigative check upon government, power, groupthink, groupthink run amuck, misrepresentation and rhetoric  – and which up until recently had formed an essential cornerstone of our robust representative democracy.

Is it love of the people?  Fox’s Sean Hannity, one of the main leaders of the Tea Party movement, wrote a best selling book which on its cover alone puts “Liberals” in with traitors and terrorists. Fox’s Glenn Beck is even worse. Tom Tancredo speaks at the convention, and manipulatively and even derisively calls “Barack, Hussein, Obama” (with special emphasis on the middle name) a socialist ideologue. Other talk show radio hosts, who seem to form a cornerstone of hatred, routinely conjure up hateful images and inflammatory rhetoric that appeals to our worst emotions and biases.  So it doesn’t seem to be love of the people of this country (unless one is the same as everybody else, which is a theme more fit, ironically, for pre wall collapse U.S.S.R. or, in the extreme, of course, Totalitarian Germany.)

What about other people.  Is it just love of half of the country’s people, and spewing hatred for the rest?

There is a big difference between disagreement with policies, and hatred for that disagreement, or for groups that are different than oneself.  For example, I’m a big supporter of serious immigration reform, and have been for a long time.  It’s a right wing view.  Some Liberals hate this view, and sometimes, opposite of Republicans, and missing the forest for the trees, ignore the fact that I am aligned with liberals on some key issues such as environmental and energy sensibility, openness and accountability in government, restricted and checked governmental power[i], health care reform and cost reform (but only sensible health care and cost reform, that addresses the root cause of the problem, over reliance upon for profit health insurance, otherwise I am an opponent), and rigorous anti trust enforcement to ensure we have a robust, and fair functioning capitalistic, not oligopolistic, market and economy.

I even think the U.S. should not be putting out information in two languages, and I hate when banks and other companies do it. It only discourages incentive to learn the language that most speak, and keeps people apart, and from being able to effectively communicate with one another.  (Interestingly, many recent and even not so recent, but language sheltered, immigrants have told me they agree completely with me on this. ) But I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t blame America’s problems on Immigrants, or on anybody but all of us, for various reasons.

But Tea Parties seem to scapegoat immigrants. Not all, but many. They certainly don’t seem to love them.  And if racism does have a place still in American society — and it seems it does — its role seems to be far more fully realized among the Tea Party crowd, than elsewhere.

So it is not love of America’s people that the Tea Partiers Love.

It is not love of our founding principles of limited, checked government with a president restrained in full by the will of he people and the constitution, a judicial systemt that serves as a check upon the unfettered will of the majority against the inherent rights of the minority, or love of that which has also made our democracy great, a robust and completely independent hard hitting fourth estate that Thoams Jefferson once called more important to our democracy than government itself.

Is it love of our mountains, land, and its natural pristine rugged beauty? Many who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement have a strange argument for efforts to move of us of fossil based fuels — fuels which are adding to an atmospheric forcing that has already ratcheted GHC concentrations to levels that are higher than any observed over the past three quarter million years, whose reliance upon compromises our national security, and sends countless billions to unfriendly and often repressive regimes, which also, GHG aside, greatly pollute the air, and in the case of coal, add to our bio-accumulation of key toxins (such as mercury) and devastation of landscapes, watersheds, and even, in some cases, whole mountain tops.  They argue that these efforts are designed for the purpose of “wrecking the economy” or because of “hatred of mankind” regardless of the fact that most scientists are telling us that we are undertaking an exceedingly risky path when it comes to potentially radical future climatic shifts with potentially devastating implications for mankind — particularly future generations.

So it doesn’t seem to be love of the natural environment, ecology, and the land.

What is it then?

Love of unfettered corporate anarchy, rather than rigorous, true capitalism, and love of rhetoric is what, at times, it seems to be. Particularly love of  rhetoric unrecognized as such, and that is the scariest thing of all.

And it is what American, including many earnest, well meaning, Tea Partiers themselves, should be most concerned with.

And Palin is probably better at misleading rhetoric than anybody in America. Save perhaps for this gentleman, another Tea Party favorite, and someone who almost got all teary eyed when he met Palin (see below).

The guy who spends most of this time railing about Fascism, and exhibits more of its underlying traits than perhaps any other leading figure in America today.Glenn Beck.

Huey Lewis once said that facism will come, in the name of anti-facism.  Glenn Beck is America’s Exhibit A.

Sarah Palin, with her emotions stirring ‘freedom’ speeches when she doesn’t even know what the word means, but can spin the head off a carrot with her rhetoric, is Exhibit B.

Glenn  Beck, meet Sarah Palin. The statute of Liberty, slightly withers in the background.
____________________________________
Endnotes:

[i] Although a few liberals think more restrictions are needed, but in general that argument is vastly over stated by the far right, a fallacy which Liberals themselves often don’t see the importance of, and so play right into.

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.”

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.