Comments on: How to win hearts and minds by losing.

How to win hearts and minds by losing.

Dipsomaniac — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:25:06 -0800

Failure is not an option, it's mandatory. "For more than three decades, the Republican Party has relied on the "culture war" to rescue their chances every four years, from Richard Nixon's campaign against the liberal news media to George H. W. Bush's campaign against the liberal flag-burners. In this culture war, the real divide is between "regular people" and an endlessly scheming "liberal elite." This strategy allows them to depict themselves as friends of the common people even as they gut workplace safety rules and lay plans to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. Most important, it has allowed Republicans to speak the language of populism."

An opinion about how the surety of losing wins votes for the Republican party.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:37:25 -0800

I thought it was funny just now when the Democratic senators let a bunch of conservative judges through in exchange for no recess appointments, and the republicans were even madder because they need to be portrayed fighters and not the ones in charge.

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:46:32 -0800

This piece is an out-of-the-park home run. It was obvious from day one that the amendment never had a shot, and of course it was never meant to have a shot; in addition to mobilizing the base, I'd also suggest it was engineered to be a high-profile sideshow designed to divert attention from Iraq. It worked on both fronts, though on the second it was but a momentary diversion. This is a calculated, phony populism - the opposite, really, of what populism is supposed to be about.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:17:38 -0800

That is one way to look at it, and I think a correct one. But we mustn't forget that the biggest reason the Republicans came up with this solution -- that of a doomed amendment rather than a pragmatic measure -- was to bring out the homophobic vote while not losing the moderates. They're appealing to bigots, not simply pretending to stick up for the little guy. It's framed as the people v. the elitist judges in the same way that the slavery question was framed as the states v. the elitist Northerners, and for the same reasons.

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:21:18 -0800

A NYT login Republican bash? How original. Stop Judicial Tyranny.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:31:56 -0800

This piece is an out-of-the-park home run. Thomas Frank (along with his magazine The Baffler) has consistently been my favorite non-fiction writer of the past decade. consise and insightful as always. his point is somewhat obvious here, but he writes it well.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:36:22 -0800

concise ... sometimes i make up british spellings that don't exist ...

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:40:26 -0800

Yeah, hama7, you're absolutely right. Those damn judges telling you that you can't tell me I don't have the same rights as you. What the hell are they thinking? Sic semper tyrannis, alright. Here's a quote from your link:

"The liberal elite and the judges at the highest level and some members of the media are determined to remove every evidence of faith in God from this entire culture. They are determined to control more and more of our private lives, and it is time that we said, 'Enough is enough.'"

But who's controlling whose private lives here? What right have you forfeited? The right to oppress me? It's bastards like you who want to control the private lives of others.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:52:24 -0800

hama7: Good example! That's exactly the kind of thing Frank is talking about. Those fuckers dress themselves up as victims of "tyranny" while working to oppress a minority. Just like the good white Christian citizens of Kansas were victimized by the tyrannical Supreme Court back in '54. Fuckers. Try reading the Federalist #10, you ignorant sons of bitches...

By: jalexei

jalexei — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:56:44 -0800

I love how the Mass SJC simply noting that our state constitution guarantees equal rights is somehow "activism", while amending the friggin' constitution isn't. I love the hypocrisy of the right who clamor for states' rights.... as long as the subject fits their agenda. Was hama7's KKK retreat canceled? He's been spewing all over the place today.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:58:54 -0800

Some folks lack the ability to see the other side. For example, for some folks, what seems like judicial tyranny when exercised by a socially-moderate judge, seems like justice when exercised by a socially-conservative judge, with little qualitative difference in the action. I used to think this kind of failure to consider the other view was due to a lack of imagination. But there's really a great deal of imagination required to believe things that extremists (on either end) believe. What seems to be lacking is a will to take control of their imagination for themselves: To send it where they will, instead of where it wants. Put another way: There's a difference between a disciplined mind and a repressed mind.

By: Dipsomaniac

Dipsomaniac — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:15:55 -0800

hama7: I have to wonder how allowing gay couples to share the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples became 'judicial tyranny'. How, exactly, are the rights of those already allowed to marry being infringed upon by letting *more* people marry? OTOH, it seems to me that actually rewriting the US Constitution to explicitly take rights away is far more 'tyrannical'. What, exactly, is the problem if Adam and Steve get married? Can someone come up with a good reason that isn't based on religion or 'it's never been done that way'? (Not that the 'never been done' reason is factual in any case).

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:20:50 -0800

It's bastards like you who want to control the private lives of others. Whose business is it what people do in private? Mister Frank is telling me in his unsurprising NYT op-ed manner that because a few judges have decided to legislate (which is not their job) that "marriage" between members of the same sex is acceptable, that any disagreement with the decision of these judges constitutes "bigotry". I say that's nonsense. This is not a private matter. Although I am surprised that the support for this bill was less than overwhelming, and would prefer that an amendment not be required, there is little recourse but to support the effort since the courts seem criminally intent on legislating preferential politics. Social engineering is not not now, nor ever has been the responsibility of supreme court justices; interpreting the constitution is. Those fuckers dress themselves up as victims of "tyranny" while working to oppress a minority. Careful, there's no "minority" being mentioned here. A racial minority, for example, can be identified by sight, and sexual orientation is a behavior. There is also no "discrimination". Discrimination is a homosexual being denied service in a restaurant, being refused a loan, or denied property rights because of his or her orientation, and that's not happening. Marriage is not denied to homosexuals. Homosexuals may marry, but they may not marry whomever or whatever they choose. Leave marriage alone.

By: Dipsomaniac

Dipsomaniac — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:26:05 -0800

'There is also no "discrimination"' That's false, actually. Any law forbidding same-sex marriage is plainly discriminating on the basis of gender. What else would you say about a law that says you may marry a woman, but not a man?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:34:51 -0800

hama7's basing his argument on the notion that homosexuality is a choice is good, it's the same as him basing an argument on the fact that the universe is 6000 years old.

By: lackutrol

lackutrol — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:38:28 -0800

To continue the inevitable off-topic discussion: hama7, you seem to be objecting to the process here without addressing the issue itself. I'm curious: would you disagree in a similarly vehement manner if a state legislature passed a bill explicitly allowing same-sex marriage? If so, why?

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:40:18 -0800

rewriting the US Constitution to explicitly take rights away is far more 'tyrannical'. The amendment is a defensive measure, taken to prohibit the political activism of unelected officials. No rights are now restricted, nor would they be should the amendment be enacted. Speaking of "taking rights away", wouldn't the amendment preventing retention of private property be more objectionable? What else would you say about a law that says you may marry a woman, but not a man? I would say that a cabbage is not a unicycle, even if a supreme court justice decides to tell me it is.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:54:01 -0800

Cabbage and unicycle? Argument by bad analogy now? You've still got nothin'.

By: monosyllabic

monosyllabic — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:58:06 -0800

Apparently hama7 has never seen the unicycle that I built out of cabbages. GAY cabbages.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:02:03 -0800

Careful, there's no "minority" being mentioned here. A racial minority, for example, can be identified by sight, and sexual orientation is a behavior. What the holy loving fuck are you talking about, hama7? Are you suggesting that the word "minority" can refer only to immutable biological categories? If so, I would suggest that you, too, reread the Federalist Papers: I was using the word "minority" in the same sense as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay used it. The minority is the group with fewer members; the majority is the group with a greater number of members. In the US, as in the general human population, homosexuals are a minority. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" refers to the phenomenon, historically inevitable in democratic societies, of the majority using its power to oppress the minority. That's not Marxist social theory: that's James Madison. In the US, we have several mechanisms to prevent such oppression, including the separation of powers, checks and balances between the branches of government, and the oversight of the judicial branch. Leave marriage alone. Tell that to that [excised string of vile obscenities] Rick Santorum. In the status quo, when gay people get married, they're married: in their eyes, in my eyes, and, if they are people of faith, in the eyes of their God. Nothing anyone--not you, not the US Senate--can do will change that, so they might as well stop trying.

By: Dipsomaniac

Dipsomaniac — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:16:57 -0800

'No rights are now restricted, nor would they be should the amendment be enacted.' Wrong, actually. This amendment as worded would forbid states to form civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. That's ignoring the fact that marriage is, in fact, a right (Lovings v. Virginia, UN UDHR). Oh, and BTW: money is not property. Income tax does not prevent the ownership of property. Thanks for nicely illustrating the point of the article with your responses about a 'defensive measure', though.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:20:46 -0800

I'm starting to think hama7 is being a deliberate foil, like a jumping off point for smart people to further drive home the arguments that just prove he's completely out to lunch.

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:44:41 -0800

The linked article nails it, and brings to mind nothing more forcibly than the image of "conservatives" being coaxed ever so slowly into a world of compassion and justice and responsibility against their will, as they kick and scream and flail all the way. 'Course, you have to sympathize with them. One really can't think of any more terrifying "behavior", more absolutely threatening to Our Conservative American Way of Life, than two people making a solemn commitment to each other in love, creating a family, and daring to seek the same blessings people who "behave", uh, more like the majority enjoy. Shit, that's scary. Is there any way we can get one of them there color coded terror alert level warnings whenever we hear about another possible gay marriage? (By the way, medical science tells us sexual orientation is part of a person's identity, like skin color. But why should we believe science over outright bigots and those who rely upon "revealed knowledge", and who not coincidentally have been on the wrong side of history and justice since the days of slavery, eh?) ~wink~

By: solistrato

solistrato — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:53:58 -0800

Why does anyone listen to hama7?

By: willnot

willnot — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:55:05 -0800

For some reason, I had the impression that hama7 was a libertarian or at least leaned very strongly in that direction. What self-respecting libertarian could possibly be in favor of the state forbidding a contract between two consenting adults? I don't care what fancy label you put on it. A contract is really all that marriage is. I guess I must have been very wrong as no libertarian could possibly see that law as anything but bad.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:03:30 -0800

Mister Frank is telling me in his unsurprising NYT op-ed manner that because a few judges have decided to legislate (which is not their job) that "marriage" between members of the same sex is acceptable, that any disagreement with the decision of these judges constitutes "bigotry". I say that's nonsense. This is not a private matter. Although I am surprised that the support for this bill was less than overwhelming, and would prefer that an amendment not be required, there is little recourse but to support the effort since the courts seem criminally intent on legislating preferential politics. Social engineering is not not now, nor ever has been the responsibility of supreme court justices; interpreting the constitution is. Wow, there are so many flaws with this statement I simply don't know where to start. I think I've finally figured out the difference between judicial interpretation and judicial activism, though - if you disagree with a decision, it's judicial activism. Careful, there's no "minority" being mentioned here. A racial minority, for example, can be identified by sight, and sexual orientation is a behavior. Really? I'm glad you told me that. Is your heterosexual orientation a behavior? (Assuming, of course, that you are heterosexual.) Is that all it is? Could you, if public opinion favored it, become homosexual? There is also no "discrimination". Discrimination is a homosexual being denied service in a restaurant, being refused a loan, or denied property rights because of his or her orientation, and that's not happening. Marriage is not denied to homosexuals. Homosexuals may marry, but they may not marry whomever or whatever they choose. Again, I'd ask you to stand your example on its head. Imagine, if you will, that you woke up tomorrow to find a homosexual majority which disapproved of your orientation. Suppose further that this majority denied you the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? Would that be ok with you? Would that be discriminatory behavior on the part of the majority? I would say that a cabbage is not a unicycle, even if a supreme court justice decides to tell me it is. Really? I thought it was the job of the judiciary to figure out what the law means. Legal terms like "marriage" are defined by what the law means, aren't they? Leave marriage alone. No. Instead, I'll do my best to see that I'm on the winning side of history, and that you and your ilk are relegated to its dustbin. You and your fundamentalist friends are our own home-grown Taliban, and you will be demolished by the forces of modernity. Buh-bye!

By: kablam

kablam — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:36:06 -0800

Failure is not an option, it's mandatory. "For more than four decades, the Democrat Party has relied on the "class war" to rescue their chances every four years, from Lyndon Johnson's campaign to create a welfare state to Bill Clinton's campaign against the American Health Industry. In this class war, the real divide is between "regular people" and the endlessly scheming "wealthy corporations." This strategy allows them to depict themselves as friends of the common people even as they gut economic success and the national defense and lay plans to turn the US government over to the United Nations. Most important, it has allowed Democrats to speak the language of populism."

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:47:15 -0800

...even as they gut economic success... GDP tends to grow by an average of about three percent per year faster under Democratic presidents than under Republicans: about 5% vs. 2% over the last 70 years or so. If your theory were correct, wouldn't you expect the Democrats to favor slower growth?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:54:38 -0800

1. There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party". The name of the party I think you are referring to is the "Democratic Party". 2. I thought the party line all this time ws that they were courting minorities and relying on their votes? 3. I wasn't aware anyone would believe that Bill Clinton's campaign to give people healthcare could possibly think to frame it as an attack on the healthcare industry. Unless you thin there will be fewer jobs for doctors when you provide healthcare for more people then you're totally out to lunch on that one. 4. "In this class war, the real divide is between "regular people" and the endlessly scheming "wealthy corporations." ". Yes. And? Oh, you're implying it's not true now? Who else buys things, then? 5. " as they gut economic success and the national defense". Gut economic success means 8 years of unprecdedented growth under clinton, as opposed to massive deficit spending? You don't live in this universe, do you? 7. Your united nations claim is putting you somewhere below the homeless guy downtown who tells me about how the government put a chip in his head on the credibility scale. 8. The democrats don't speak the language of populism enough, that's why they haven't been winning.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:08:24 -0800

Bill Moyers interviewed Frank last week, here's the full transcript, scroll down to Frank (the interview with Clea Koff is remarkable.)

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:11:58 -0800

For more than three decades, the Republican Party has relied on the "culture war" to rescue their chances every four years Yes! And of course, the Democrats have never engaged in the culture or class warfare rhetoric in their electioneering. Except for Kerry/Edwards. And Gore. And Clinton. And Mondale. Oops. In this culture war, the real divide is between "regular people" and an endlessly scheming "liberal elite." As opposed to the divide between "humanists" and "fundamentalist Christians", or "thoughtful, ethical people" and those "endlessly scheming", evil "neo-cons", or warm loving "open-minded" folks and the "repressive white patriarchy", or between good. hard-workin' "reg'lar people" and those terrible corporations. Interesting that a post about the Republicans being responsible for "culture wars" is itself a bomb dropped in the very same war. I can, however, understand why Democrats are attempting to portray Republicans as the ones responsible for "culture wars" ... it may help detract a bit of attention from the fact that Kerry and Edwards (of all damn people) are actually trying to portray themselves as bloody populsists in touch with the "common man". Sheesh.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:18:50 -0800

OMG! Class war! Do something! From Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right: Anytime a liberal points out that the wealthy are disproportionately benefiting from Bush's tax policies, Republicans shout, "class warfare!" In her book, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with his children watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her husband and then killed her. That is class warfare. Arguing over the optimum marginal tax rate for the top one percent is not.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:25:36 -0800

and Edwards (of all damn people) Yeah, after quitting time at the mill, Edward's old man was off to the country club to knock a few back with the local Rockefellers. Yeah, right...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:54:58 -0800

More from Frank: Red-State America Against Itself

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:05:27 -0800

Between the main link and homunculus' link I'm buying What's the Matter with Kansas? right now.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:45:36 -0800

Anytime a liberal points out that the wealthy are disproportionately benefiting from Bush's tax policies, Republicans shout, "class warfare!" And anytime a conservative points out that the wealthly are "disproportionately benefiting" from those tax cuts because they pay a "disporportionate" percentage of the taxes in the first place, they are chided for not wanting to pay "their fair share". Close to half the country pays no income taxes at all. Of course they will not get much of a "tax cut" from Bush. John Edwards and John Kerry are certainly free to make their infamous "two Americas" speeches all they want. That part of politics. Just as every Democratic candidate for the past 20 or 30 years has tried to use either class or cultural warfare as prominant election strategies. But its a bit dim to try to - at the same time - complain that it is the Republicans that are responsible. Warfare require combatents - and the Democrats are every bit as responsible (and in many instances, considerably more responsible) for the battles.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:56:50 -0800

Why does anyone listen to hama7? I dunno ... maybe because he's one of the few that actually provide an alternative perspective? Even though the last thing the lefties here apparently want is an environment that is actually genuinely open to diverse opinions (interesting group ... that condemns the close-mindedness of the right, and then gang-tackles anyone that dares disagrees with their "truths") ... still, hama7 actually makes posts interesting. The preaching-to-the-choir-filter would get a tad boring, after all, without a token conservative to demean every now and then.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:02:59 -0800

PS. You rock hama. While I've been too busy the last couple of months (using my share of the Bush tax to actually create jobs) to write much, still, you are a bloody kick to read ... and that fact that, at times, even a single paragraph from you in a thread can generate a dozen self-righteous posts full of delightful moral indignation (and cynical one-liners that are widely viewed as "clever") is just a hoot. I have a feeling you just laugh your ass off at some of the responses ... Keep stompin' the terra dude ...

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:11:28 -0800

Shorter MidasMulligan: It's OK to hate and advocate discrimination against gay people because most people don't.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:15:31 -0800

And anytime a conservative points out that the wealthly are "disproportionately benefiting" from those tax cuts because they pay a "disporportionate" percentage of the taxes in the first place, they are chided for not wanting to pay "their fair share". Close to half the country pays no income taxes at all. Of course they will not get much of a "tax cut" from Bush. From Forbes.com Q&A with David Cay Johnson:

What's wrong with our current tax system? Most Americans believe what turns out to be a myth--that we heavily tax the highest-income Americans to subsidize the poor. What the government's data show is that the middle class and upper middle class--people making $30,000 to $500,000 per year--are subsidizing the highest-income taxpayers. Tax rates on the middle and upper middle classes are rising, the government's data show, but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically. Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed. I name two billionaires who've testified under oath that for 30 years they never filed a tax return while running a business in New York. Nothing has happened to them, or to most of the many other people I name in my book who admit or even brag about not paying taxes.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:27:54 -0800

hama7's basing his argument on the notion that homosexuality is a choice is good, it's the same as him basing an argument on the fact that the universe is 6000 years old. So his argument holds if one is homosexual by choice?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:32:50 -0800

So his argument holds if one is homosexual by choice? are you heteosexual by choice? Meaning, if you were in a community where being homosexual had become the dominant choice, would you be able to adapt and fit in? And no, in my opinion it still wouldn't hold because limiting people's ability to enter into contracts based on their gender is still dumb. But arguing over false premises is even more dumb.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:02:24 -0800

Shorter MidasMulligan: It's OK to hate and advocate discrimination against gay people because most people don't. Original MidasMulligan: "and the fact that, at times, even a single paragraph from you in a thread can generate a dozen self-righteous posts full of delightful moral indignation (and cynical one-liners that are widely viewed as "clever") is just a hoot. "

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:06:34 -0800

are you heteosexual by choice? Meaning, if you were in a community where being homosexual had become the dominant choice, would you be able to adapt and fit in? I am heterosexual by what I suspect is biological predisposition, just as there are people naturally predisposed to homosexuality. As far as I understand it, though, there are people who argue that one's sexual orientation is a free choice -- this statement implies that it is possible to be homosexual or bisexual by choice. Toss me a credible source that says different and I'll be glad to admit it was indeed a false premise. And no, in my opinion it still wouldn't hold because limiting people's ability to enter into contracts based on their gender is still dumb. But arguing over false premises is even more dumb. This is more to the point, but the argument above mentions judges overstepping their bounds. I am fairly indifferent towards the ethical concept of gay marriage, but I do wonder about the so-called "judicial activism" that is helping to bring it about, and whether it is the right means to bring about social change. I also don't automatically label someone who disagrees with the idea a bigot.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:15:09 -0800

Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed. I name two billionaires who've testified under oath that for 30 years they never filed a tax return while running a business in New York. Nothing has happened to them, or to most of the many other people I name in my book who admit or even brag about not paying taxes. Yes, because obviously an interview with specious allegations and anecdotal evidence clearly proves that massive generalizations about an economy containing close to 300 billion people are true, and that the numbers reported by the IRS itself are clearly false. (PS. - here's a clue ... the middle class reads Forbes, because it thinks, for some reason, that the wealthy read it ... but the wealthy do not read Forbes - which is widely considered one of the single most vacuous business publications in existance, whose "facts" have been proved wrong so often as to make the rag not even worth reading, and whose widely quoted investment "advice" is generally a good way to bankrupt oneself. Now and then business leaders do agree to interviews - because it is a good forum to achieve whatever ends they are trying to achieve - but on the whole, it is pretty much the business equivilant of the National Enquirer).

By: jaronson

jaronson — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:50:15 -0800

We have a winner, folks. No more calls, please.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:18:56 -0800

Whether it's a choice or not should be irrelevant. We don't allow discrimination on the basis of religious belief, and that's a choice. My fellow gay rights advocates: pushing the biological determinism angle is a dangerous game that could very well have some very bad unintended consequences. Defend homosexuality and homosexual behavior on its own merits, not on whether it's truly voluntary or not. There is nothing wrong with gay sex.

By: boredomjockey

boredomjockey — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:58:54 -0800

[MidasMulligan] Social engineering is not not now, nor ever has been the responsibility of supreme court justices; interpreting the constitution is. Seems that's just what they're doing: They're evaluating laws legalizing gay marriage, or laws forbidding gay marriage, or laws that fail to provide for gay marriage vis-a-vis their interpretation of the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. Is your position that judges should never rule on the constitutionality of matters that have the potential to cause a social change, lest they be accused of "social engineering"? Was Brown vs. Board of Education a shameful case of "social engineering"? Was that a case of "a judiciary wrongly trumping the will of the people", to use a phrase from hama7's article? [hama7] Marriage is not denied to homosexuals. Homosexuals may marry, but they may not marry whomever or whatever they choose. Extending your logic, would you have no problem with a law that prohibited mixed-race marriages? e.g., "Marriage is not denied to people who date those of other races. They may marry, but they may not marry whomever or whatever they choose." If a judge struck that law down on constitutional grounds, would that be a case of "judicial tyranny"? Ethereal Bligh: I agree completely.

By: asok

asok — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:02:01 -0800

MM praising H7 tells us more about him than his usual rhetoric. MM, your omniscience is a wonder to behold, but I think you may have overstated the size of the US market somewhat. Whilst H7 may represent an opinion that would otherwise not be represented here, when what he writes is (often) rabid pyschosis of questionable merit. He also does not 'do' discussion very well. These factors tend to push him toward being filed under 'troll', at least in my experience that has been the case. Reading what you have written in this thread would lead me to thinking that you would agree that H7 is a troll. Please show the self respect not to repeat the unfounded and incorrect suggestion that Metafilter is a hostile place for alternative opinions. Well expressed and clear writing, backed up with factual links is always welcomed here. Bigotry and willful ignorance are never well received. /MMFilter Although this may not have been the most balanced of FPPs, the link is described as 'an opinion'. Does this opinion cut too close to the quick for some?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:16:37 -0800

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." John McCain

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:04:25 -0800

Just to defend—a little—the conservative case against "judicial activism" is that, for example, the Warren court was extremely aggressive, dubiously aggressive, in finding Constitutional justification for measures that, in its view, would increase social justice. This was not covert, really; there was at that time the sense that many things could only be remedied by an activist court. My own position on this is nuanced. I think that view may well have been quite right—it may have indeed been the only way to get many of these things done. Contemporary conservatives tend to be, for example, very ignorant of how little the court defended civil liberties at all before the middle of this century. The Bill of Rights was mostly for show until recently. It may well be that this very aggressive push by the judicial branch both a) secured some necessary and just social changes, with dubious Constitutional justification, that otherwise would not have been achieved; and b) over-aggressive courts created a climate where civil liberties were finally taken very seriously. Even so, I have distaste for "judicial activism" because I believe, firstly, that what goes around comes around (and we are seeing that with the recent conservative activism of today's court); and because I think that judicial circumvention of the democratic process creates as many social problems as it likely solves. That said, "judicial activism" is a criticism too-often flung around that really just means "an outcome I don't like".

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:21:01 -0800

I could give a sweet fuck what "the wealthy" read. MM's handwaving away my rebuttal of his claim that the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes with some kind of haughty dismissal of the source because "the wealthy don't read it" is also telling. We're learning a lot about MM today, aren't we?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 07:25:20 -0800

Midas, are you OK? Why does anyone listen to hama7? I dunno ... maybe because he's one of the few that actually provide an alternative perspective? The gay marriage debacle aside, on most issues, there's plenty of people who offer positions dissenting from the MeFi norm, and they manage to do it without dropping stinkbombs into discussions. You usually are one of them Midas. If your cheering on someone like hama7, then I might have to reevaluate.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 07:51:12 -0800

what with our kiddie rapin' "Boys Defending Francedom in Iraq", not to mention the excitement of finally capturing bobby fischer and all, midas is just swaying on the beam a little.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:24:02 -0800

A little more on that "judicial activism" and how it's not forgotten, from Joan Chittister, OSB. Funny how stopping activist judges is so important to the Republicans now, but not back then. You can't fight a culture war if you're so full of shit it pours out of your mouth at every turn.

By: Fenriss

Fenriss — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:58:42 -0800

"Wait, so a man and woman is better than a single parent who is better than two gay parents who are equal to a man fucking a turtle?" -Jon Stewart

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:21:33 -0800

As to class warfare: Among the most important props of that 2000 campaign were black children. Mr. Bush could be seen hugging them at endless photo-ops. He said a Bush administration would do great things for them. He promised to transform public education in America. He hijacked the trademarked slogan of the Children's Defense Fund, "Leave No Child Behind," and refashioned it for his own purposes. He pasted the new version, "No Child Left Behind," onto one of the signature initiatives of his presidency, a supposedly historic education reform act. The only problem is that, to date, the act has been underfunded by $26 billion. A lot of those kids the president hugged have been left behind. And why not? They can't do much for him. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" captured a telling presidential witticism. Mr. Bush, appearing before a well-heeled gathering in New York, says: "This is an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." It wasn't really his base. But the comment spoke volumes. Mr. Bush said he was a different kind of Republican, but what black voters see are tax cuts for the very wealthy and underfunded public schools. What they see is an economy that sizzles for the haves and the have-mores, but a harrowing employment crisis for struggling blacks, especially black men. (When the Community Service Society looked at the proportion of the working-age population with jobs in New York City it found that nearly half of all black men between the ages of 16 and 64 were not working last year. That's a Depression-era statistic.) In Florida, where the president's brother is governor, and Texas, where the president once was the governor, state officials have been pulling the plug on health coverage for low-income children. The president could use his considerable clout to put a stop to that sort of thing, but he hasn't. And now we know that Florida was gearing up for a reprise of the election shenanigans of 2000. It took a court order to get the state to release a list of 48,000 suspected felons that was to be used to purge people from the voting rolls. It turned out that the list contained thousands of names of black people, who tend to vote Democratic, and hardly any names of Hispanics, who in Florida tend to vote Republican. Bush's Not-So-Big Tent One side practices class warfare 24/7 365 days a year, and then cries in horror when the Eisenhower Republicans Formerly Know As Democrats talk it. Consider, for example those legendary jobs being created by MidasMulligan, their unprovable brain-in-a-vat existence aside: Hourly Pay in U.S. Not Keeping Pace With Price Rises The amount of money workers receive in their paychecks is failing to keep up with inflation. Though wages should recover if businesses continue to hire, three years of job losses have left a large worker surplus... Even though the economy has been adding hundreds of thousands of jobs almost every month this year, stagnant wages could put a dent in the prospects for economic growth, some economists say. If incomes continue to lag behind the increase in prices, it may hinder the ability of ordinary workers to spend money at a healthy clip, undermining one of the pillars of the expansion so far... On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May. Coming on top of a 12-minute drop in the average workweek, the decline in the hourly rate last month cut deeply into workers' pay. In June, production workers took home $525.84 a week, on average. After accounting for inflation, this is about $8 less than they were pocketing last January. And it is the lowest level of weekly pay since October 2001. See also Weak Recovery Claims New Victim: Workers' Wages Also, forget the little fact that this President, as Bob Herbert notes above, is on track to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs--empty rhetoric, though it is, he'd have to be creating a lot of jobs to make up for the ones lost by President Friend To The Haves And Have Mores, who has been waging Permanent Class War since he took office. And, from the evidence, they'd have to pay well. If the so-called recovery need happy optimists willing to spend their way out of the recession enmass, well, we consume our way out of the hole on burger flippin' wages, odd as it seems... Meanwhile the money keeps being redistributed upwards. Downsizing the labor force and creating shit wage replacement jobs--now there's your class warfare. And note again Florida's voter roll purge mentioned above-- thousands of blacks and two score and ten Hispanics. Gosh, they'd made a mistake--oh, what an embarassment! Not like it was a slick little act of mass class and race warfare--Now two! Two mints in one!--combined with which they were trying to get away. Oh no, not ever.

By: hama7

hama7 — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:20:41 -0800

Keep stompin' the terra dude ... I will if you will, Midas the Munificent. Many thanks.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:32:09 -0800

I will if you will, Midas the Munificent. Many thanks. Nothin'.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:26:57 -0800

for more on this subject, check out What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, by Thomas Frank.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:32:17 -0800

"and the fact that, at times, even a single paragraph from you in a thread can generate a dozen self-righteous posts full of delightful moral indignation (and cynical one-liners that are widely viewed as "clever") is just a hoot. " ParisParamus keeps making the exact same point. Drop a needlessly incendiary comment into a Metafilter thread, whack the bees' nest, and just kick back and laugh as all the Metafilter left buzzes around in fury and wastes time and words. The sport - cruel in a sense, yes - is almost legitimized by the fact that these right-wingers are often very upfront about what they are up to. ParisParamus has talked about it a number of times : wryly, sardonically, sometimes gloatingly, and in a strategic light as well - "Good thing you all are in here and not out in the real World" - this comment can be taken several ways, of of which means "you're all safely botled up here and wasting your energies" . I'm starting to find it blackly amusing as well. Yes, certain point and comments demand rebuttal. But, when does that become useless, angry buzzing around ?

By: ramakrishna

ramakrishna — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:48:04 -0800

The trolls have been getting some mighty fine eatin' on this one. By the end of reading these comments I had basically forgotten about the original point of the FPP and link, which is sad, because it's a really good one. I think Frank has made a brilliant point about how the Republican right thrives on apparent failure. At a time when they rule every house of government and most other institutions in American society, they continue to portray themselves as fighting a losing battle. To be fair, though, I think the left was just as prone to the same kind of thinking when it was on top of things. In the '60s even the Republicans were liberal - Nixon's visit to China was really the inverse of Clinton's welfare reforms. And yet the society was filled with left-wing movements screaming about how awful the world was becoming. Isn't it possible for a political position to at least win graciously?