Reason.com
The Third Way
There is another way forward for the Republican Party
In the wake of Clubber Lang's vicious defeat of Philadelphia's favorite son in Rocky III, the Italian Stallion reflected back on why he lost. It seemed he had everything going for him—but then he got caught up in his own glory. When Rocky finally hit bottom, his former nemesis, Apollo Creed, dramatically stepped in to offer some stock speech wisdom: "When we fought, you had that eye of the tiger, man, the edge! And now you gotta get it back, and the way to get it back is go back to the beginning."
Today's Republicans are in similar spot. After Barack Obama's massive win, they've been reviewing the fight tapes, only to discover that getting caught up in the glow of their own power eventually led to their downfall. They should've gotten the message in 2006, but this November's spectacular defeat (save Ted "Marion Barry" Stevens) has finally woken them up. Now the question is: What direction will the Republican Party take? Will the GOP "return" to some dogma of the past? Reaganomics would appease many in the Old Party "old guard" who think like Apollo Creed. Or will the party invoke Teddy Roosevelt's progressivism and shift more to the political center? These are the two options currently being debated by pundits on all sides, but the fact is that either option would spell doom for Republicans.
Consider David Brooks' most recent column in the New York Times, where he outlines what he sees as the GOP dividing into two warring camps now that they've been thoroughly defeated. It's the Traditionalists versus the Reformers. Reagan versus Teddy. Old Party power versus moderate centrism. But in reading Brooks' analysis, one is left wondering if there isn't another direction the GOP could head in order to return to power.
Brooks defines the "Traditionalists" as those who believe "the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin." He puts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist, and organizations such as the Federalist Society and Family Research Council into this camp.
Palin, Limbaugh, and Hannity truly do belong in the same wing of the GOP, the branch that has rejected intellectualism in favor of dogma, the group that believes passionate devotion to the "real America" will energize a Nietzschian-like will to power. Unfortunately, Brooks identifies this group as the defenders of the free market. That's not a reassuring thought for those who favor both free markets and free minds.
The second group Brooks sees the GOP splintering into is the "Reformers." This group tends to believe that "American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party."
Brooks puts authors David Frum (Comeback), Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (Grand New Party), Ramesh Ponnuru, and Peggy Noonan into this group—as well as himself, proving that his neocon spine has cat-like flexibility. These Republicans believe in John McCain's mission to take the party towards the center with the rest of the country—though most were critical of his methods during the campaign.
Given the Brooks analysis, here's the real problem for the Republicans: The Traditionalist defenders of capitalism wind up out of touch with America and grounded in rhetoric rather than political principle. Meanwhile, Reformers who want to "appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters" have to abandon the small government model and become the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
None of that spells long term success for Republicans. What the GOP needs are libertarians, those who believe not only in small government, but also in individualism and the truly liberating power of free markets. If the Ron Paul movement tells us anything, it's that the Republican Party can be more than a party of old white guys with bad hair cuts.
Brooks believes that the Traditionalist will win in the short term—led in 2012 by Sarah Palin—but that Reformers will win out in the end as the GOP continues to lose. He argues that once the GOP suffers more defeats, the Reformers "will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again."
Again, it's doubtful that Brooks' vision of a reformed, moderate Republican Party will be able to differentiate itself from a lukewarm Democratic Party. But even if they were to rise to power, it wouldn't be the small government, Goldwater-style GOP of old. It would simply be a new kind of party.
What does this mean for the future of free market economics? Perhaps today's libertarians will learn first hand the pain of Hayek, Friedman, Mises, and the rest at Mont Pelerin who had to confront a world that adversely opposed their ideas.
But perhaps not.
A new conservative movement that takes libertarian ideas seriously could use the inertia created by the nation's new progressivism to slingshot itself into the future on a platform of reduced government, lower taxes, and limited interventionism, while also respecting climate change (adjusting the tax code to encourage green reform without any expense to taxpayers) and reforming the immigration system (opening the borders as the market demands labor without sacrificing security).
The Republican Party has a chance to transform itself into something it has never been: a party of small government based on classical liberal principles. It doesn't have to be one of David Brooks' visions of the GOP. In fact, if the Republican Party wants to return to power it will recognize the flaws in both approaches, avoid them like Road Runner toying with Wile E. Coyote, and embrace libertarianism instead.
Anthony Randazzo is a research associate at the Reason Foundation.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I suppose this is as good a time as any to link to Walter Block's
defense religion.
(Walter Block is a libertarian atheist who is famous for his book
*Defending the Undefendable,* which defends people like
blackmailers and drug-dealers. To many libertarians, however, his
defense of religion will be seen as the most indenfendable position
of all.)
"I am guided in this by the aphorism "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend." While this does not always hold true, in this case I think
it does.
"So, which institution is the greatest enemy of human liberty?
There can be only one answer: the state in general, and, in
particular, the totalitarian version thereof. Perhaps there is no
greater example of such a government than the USSR, and its chief
dictators, Lenin and Stalin (although primacy of place in terms of
sheer numbers of innocents murdered might belong to Mao's China).
We thus ask, which institutions did these two Russian worthies
single out for opprobrium? There can be only one answer: primarily,
religion, and, secondarily, the family. It was no accident that the
Soviets passed laws rewarding children for turning in their parents
for anti-communistic activities. There is surely no better way to
break up the family than this diabolical policy. And, how did they
treat religion? To ask this is to answer it. Religion was made into
public enemy number one, and its practitioners viciously hunted
down.
"Why pick on religion and the family? Because these are the two
great competitors - against the state - for allegiance on the part
of the people. The Communists were quite right, from their own evil
perspective, to focus on these two institutions. All enemies of the
overweening state, then, would do well to embrace religion and the
family as their friends, whether they are themselves atheists or
not, parents or not."
BDB|11.15.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Eh, nevermind, there were two Thomas Harris's in the Civil War (and both generals!)
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 2:01PM|#
I have to give you credit, CED - you retreated faster than the
Yankees did during the Peninsular Campaign (that is, *very*
fast).
Just to
be clear, the general I was referring to was a Union
general.
|11.15.08 @ 2:10PM|#
"We thus ask, which institutions did these two Russian worthies
single out for opprobrium? There can be only one answer: primarily,
religion, and, secondarily, the family."
This is twiddle-twaddle you know. Stalin made divorce very
difficult to get, he banned abortion and made homosexuality
punishable by years of hard labor. Stalin exalted the family in
ways that would make a conservative Catholic very happy.
economist-I certainly don't think Catholics are all authoritarian.
I do think the Catholic Church as an institution is authoritarian.
It's strongly hierachial, concentrates power in a leader, teaches
that its authority is final, etc. I'd be interested in how they
could be seen as not being so.
Congregationalist churches are a good example of non-authoritarian
churches.
|11.15.08 @ 2:18PM|#
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic
movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations:
we have stamped it out.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost
duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation.
It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our
nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of
our national morality, and the family as the basis of national
life."
Quote by: Adolf Hitler
Justen|11.15.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Organized religion is an institutional control structure at
least as deadly and dangerous as the state. Keeping the two pitted
against each-other is much more productive in terms of personal
freedom than letting either dominate, or in a terrible worst case
scenario as in Nazi Germany or most of Europe in the dark ages,
letting them operate as a single unit.
Even so, life in communist Russia was probably better than life
under the Pope in medieval Spain. Communism opposed the free
practice of commerce, the Church is opposed any kind of freedom
whatsoever (except the airy and insubstantial 'spiritual freedom'
where you are brutally oppressed but still feel some kind of warped
emotional freedom). Neither will ever be anything but the enemy of
freedom, and an alliance of convenience with one or the other is
bound to have a dangerous outcome.
I would still take the enemies of commerce over the enemies of the
mind, as a personal choice. The concept of an alliance between
(little 'l') libertarians and the Republican party has never made
sense to me. The better choice is to work earnestly to convince
freedom loving people in both parties that neither the Republicans
nor the Democrats are their allies.
Elemenope|11.15.08 @ 3:21PM|#
"Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make
common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom
and what to do with the sometime product thereof?"
Well, start with the fact that everyone on this thread - including
yourself - is the "product" of the process you describe.
I was immaculately conceived, you insensitive clod!
|11.15.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Sorry to upset you Jim Bob, but while, as I noted, the Deep
South has many good aspects, it's politically a theocracy/racist
area.
What, exactly, is it you are seeing in the south? Names, dates,
locations, and events put into context would help your arguments.
Actually, scratch that- you've not made an argument, just some
inflammatory remarks. Blanket statements about what you think the
south must be like based on- what, exactly? TV shows?
Movies? Gone With the Wind?
Shirley Franklin is the mayor of Atlanta, MNG. Shirley Franklin is
an African-American woman. I attend a private Christian university
in the deep south that actively recruits minorities.
African-Americans are involved in government, they are community
leaders, they are businesspeople. Sure, I offer you some anecdotes,
but that's more than you. So, flex your degree. Give me some
numbers. Give me some facts and connect the dots, draw me a
picture. Otherwise I'm going to continue to insist that you're
talking out of your ass.
I can't speak for people's private attitudes, thoughts, and
opinions. But then, neither can you.
What is it you want to see, MNG? Scary poor white people in trailer
parks sent to education camps? Every white man, woman, and child
born and raised in the south to be eternally judged because of the
past? Are we all ignorant crackers to you? Do you really think that
speaking in broad stereotypes makes you sound any better than any
racist or bigot on earth?
Fuck it. You see what you want to see, and you believe what you
want to believe. It's not based on any logic or reason, but on
preconceptions that simply must be true, because if they
weren't, you might have to own up to your human responsibility to
engage in a little critical thinking, instead of making broad
caricatures out of people you've never even met.
|11.15.08 @ 4:57PM|#
CED | November 15, 2008, 11:28am | #
Here is a map of the now unconstitutional liberty restricting
sodomy laws by state. Notice a pattern?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg
The pattern I see is that places with highly religious populations
(Mormon Utah and Idaho, the Bible Belt) tend to want government
enforcement of their religion-based morality.
Was that the point you were trying to make? Because it seems
incredibly obvious without even looking at the chart.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I'm very sorry, CED, I should have kept better track of my
acronyms.
"Stalin exalted the family in ways that would make a conservative
Catholic very happy."
Perhaps this is why Stalin regarded the Church as Public Enemy #1,
and why the Church has been frequently criticized by liberals for
its "excessive" anticommunism.
"life in communist Russia was probably better than life under the
Pope in medieval Spain"
These
victims of Stalin's terror-famine in the Ukraine would be glad
to know that.
"Adolf Hitler" blah blah
Are you suggesting that Hitler was given to telling the truth in
his public statements? What about his public statement that the
Sudetenland was his final territorial demand in Europe? Do you
believe that, too?
Even critics who try to link the National Socialists with
Christianity are forced to acknowledge that (a) the Nazis were
anti-Catholic, (b) the version Protestantism they promoted was
neo-Marcionite, that is, Christianity without the Old Testament,
(c) key figures in the regime were pagans, including the head of
the S.S., Shirach the head of Hitler Youth, and propagandist Alfred
Rosenberg.
"I was immaculately conceived, you insensitive clod!"
So? You still haven't denied having a human father and a human
mother! Or have you made the vulgar error of confusing the
Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth?
JeffB|11.15.08 @ 5:20PM|#
We should all, Dem/'Pub, left/right, lib/con, be able to get behind smaller, limited, more efficient government. After all, you know what happens when government gets behind you: you get screwed.
tarran|11.15.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Justen,
I tend to rate economic freedom at a higher priority than the
"freedom of the mind" for one simple reason:
If I own my home and want to engage in illegal anal sex, then I
have a reasonable chance of doing it without getting trhown in
jail.
On the other hand, if I am not allowed to amass property but am
free to have anal sex in the apartment I share with two families -
how much fun am I really going to have.
Not to mention that economically illiberal regimes tend to be
moralizing ones too. Witness the Nazi and Bolshevik campaigns
against homosexuality and jazz music...
For example, here in "liberal" Massachusetts, a man can get thrown
in jail for selling a beer on a Sunday or for betting on a baseball
game. Nor can a man marry two women at the same time with their
consent.
The fact is that with economic freedom, people can organize their
private lives to their pleasure. without it, their lives suck.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 6:29PM|#
The National Socialist abuse of the name of God was denounced in
Pope Pius Xi's
famous 1937 encyclical against the National Socialists:
"7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God,
the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be
preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not
he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred
word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever
identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by
either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the
world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever
follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of
substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God,
denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from
end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii.
1). Neither is he a believer in God.
"8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a
particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any
other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary
and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises
these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an
idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world
planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God
and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
"9. Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as
in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless
label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of
human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they
refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God,
supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of
Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator
of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the
history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival
God by His side."
|11.15.08 @ 6:57PM|#
The problem with this theory is that a huge chunk of the modern
Republican party is made up of the religious right. If the Reps
were to adopt libertarianism, this wing would desert the party and
leave a gaping hole.
The social cons are the foot-soldiers of the Reps. The
free-marketers provide the money- without both the party can't
function.
If what this author proposes was possible, it would have already
happened. There is a reason the social cons are able to drive as
much of the policy as they do. Republicans need those social
conservative votes to win, and even now that doesn't look so
good.
The Dems are already perceived as about as socially liberal as a
majority of the electorate is willing to tolerate, so greater
social liberalism really won't attract a lot of votes.
Also, most free-market libertarians already vote Republican. There
are not enough in the ranks of moderate Democrats and independents
to make up for the social conservative votes that would be
lost.
However much a relief it would be to see the Republicans take this
path, it is probably untenable.
|11.15.08 @ 7:02PM|#
And to think, I was wasting all my time on that Bill Maher blog.
This is where all the fun is.
You guys crack me up (people who post comments, not the
writers.)
|11.15.08 @ 7:07PM|#
There are just too many votes from the Christian Coalition for the GOP to change now. The only reason they lost was because they (CC) hate John McCain and didn't turn out. That's why, with all the record registrations, overall turnout was about the same as 2004.
|11.15.08 @ 7:43PM|#
The Republican Party does not need social conservative votes to
win. What they need to do is begin offering true freedom to the
American people both socially, such as the Democrat Party has
successfully done for a while, and economically, which people will
see the desperate need for in the next election. Social
conservatism will die out in America exactly like it has in Europe.
America typically fashions its social changes after the Europeans
as in the issues of slavery and woman's rights.
What the Republican Party needs is people like Sarah Palin and Ron
Paul, which, by the way, would be a wonderful ticket in 2012, to
remind the people of how America became the wealthiest and most
powerful nation in the world and can remain there for the
foreseeable future. Right now people are losing faith in American
strength as the entire Western World loses economic power to new
giants such as China and Japan in the East, and America fails to
succeed in Iraq. People must be shown that true equality comes in
the shape of equal opportunity to equal assets, not the giving of
equal assets.
|11.15.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Although I agree with much of your comment, this
What the Republican Party needs is people like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul,
is the wrong prescription.
Ron Paul - too old in 2012.
Sarah Palin - lacks the gravitas necessary to run for national
office.
But what the hell do I know? I predicted Giuliani vs Clinton for
2008.
|11.15.08 @ 8:17PM|#
"Was that the point you were trying to make? Because it seems
incredibly obvious without even looking at the chart."
Not to everybody, witness Mad Max...
"So, flex your degree. Give me some numbers. Give me some facts and
connect the dots, draw me a picture. Otherwise I'm going to
continue to insist that you're talking out of your ass."
Jim Bob, I know the quality of education in Christian colleges is
sorely lacking and the South lags behind other areas in educational
indicators, but surely you can at least read upthread to see the
facts and numbers I give. Like my posts at: 11:13, 11:28, 11:28,
11:32, 11:40, 11:54,...Numbers from surveys and polls, historical
facts, citing statutes...All the stuff you ask for, I've already
given, in spades.
Jim Bob, as a representative of the South you're kinda making my
argument here! Your allegations of my supposedly irrational hatred
of the South is funny, it looks more like you have some irrational
tribalistic reason to defend your area's "honor." But I'll let the
facts speak for themselves.
zoltan|11.15.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Putting Palin and Paul in the same group is just a slap in the face to Paul and anyone else who is aware that there is such a study as economics.
|11.15.08 @ 8:34PM|#
although, CED, you should know that liberal alcohol laws and
serving times (i.e. "last call") are more prevalent in the South
than the North.
Alabama and Alaska have the latest "last call" time for states (5
A.M.), but Georgia, Flordia, Tennessee and Louisiana all provide
significant exceptions across their states to the standard 2 A.M.
rule. Much more liberal than their "northern" counterparts.
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Some combination of Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, Mark Sanford. Put two of the 3 on a bumper sticker and I'll vote GOP again.
Just Plain Brian|11.15.08 @ 8:43PM|#
And to think, I was wasting all my time on that Bill Maher blog.
Bill puts on a good show, but he thinks he's a libertarian because
he's a liberal who likes to smoke pot (not that we don't, but
there's a bit more to it)
Welcome!
Just Plain Brian|11.15.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Ron Paul - too old in 2012.
Didn't you hear? We now have 120 year old
mice! By 2012 we'll have found a way to keep Ron Paul alive
until he's 140, at least. And who knows, maybe we'll find a way to
ensmarten Sarah Palin between now and then.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 8:59PM|#
"11:13"
This is the post in which you cite slavery (you mean the South had
slavery? Oh, shit, why didn't someone tell me?), and cite the
"researchers" who attributed felon disenfranchisement to "racial
threat." When I showed that these authors were full of shit,
blaming "racial threat" for Florida's felony-disenfranchisement
policy which started in 1845 when all the disenfranchised felons
were white, you didn't think this reflected in any way on the
scientific bona fides of the authors, but continued to cite them -
their new line is that felony disenfranchisement was a response to
recial threat or (the new line) Jacksonian democracy. Bear in mind
that Jacksonian democracy means *white male* suffrage, so nice try
with your "racial threat" nonsense.
Nor did you even bother to respond to my point that states
practicing racially-motivated felony disenfranchisement *allowed
white felons to vote.* If felons are disenfranchised regardless of
race, that tends to show that it's convicted felons, not members of
particular races, that policymakers are worried about.
"11:28"
You cite two posts from 11:28. The first of these is where you
engage in the reputable scientific technique of calling people
names - "Taliban" and "nazi." You don't bother citing evidence.
Then you assume that the reason Jim Bob isn't persuaded by his
eloquence is that he lacks your high level of education.
The second 11:28 post is about sodomy laws. You show that states
which don't like sodomy are more likely to pass laws against it.
Thus, these states are not libertarian polities. But bearing in
mind that your are positing the South as *uniquely* evil, to the
extent that political parties should seek votes from other states
and not from the South, you still have to show that other states
are more tolerant. To prove this, you will have to show that other
states are willing to tolerate things which the people of these
states disapprove of. When the rubber hits the road, other states
are just as willing to ban voluntary, adult conduct they disapprove
of as any Deep South state.
You might want to check out this map of "smoke-free" laws
throughout the country - see how it's *not* the Deep South
which is most likely to impose such laws on smokers and private
businesses. So I suppose it's a question of whether you are less
bothered by the persecution of smokers or by the persecution of
gays. (and laws against smoking in "public" places are more likely
to be enforced, because there isn't that technicality of sanctity
of the home to worry about).
"11:32"
Wait, that's felony disenfranchisement again. You're
double-counting!
"11:32"
Mary G. Wanda. Well, at least those Yankees have something to take
their minds off the tobacco bans.
"11:54"
Sodomy again - more double-counting!
So your bill of complaint (omitting duplicative material) comes
down to four points (a) sodomy, (b) medical MJ, (c) felony
disenfranchisement, and (d) name-calling. Once we elimainate (d),
and once we throw out (c) because it's a demonstrable non-starter,
we're left with sodomy and medical MJ. Yet the non-Southern states
have shown themselves quite willing to ban practices *they*
dislike, like tobacco use - not to mention the conduct of private
employers in providing health benefits to employees, and a few
other things.
|11.15.08 @ 8:59PM|#
What they need to do is boot that moron dictator bush out of
office and let Obama do his thing.
Jigg
http://www.anonweb.eu.tc
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 9:23PM|#
And here is the
federal appeals court decision upholding Mississippi's
felony-disenfranchisement scheme. When the disenfranchisement
provisions were first included in the Mississippi Constitution,
there was a distinction between "black" crimes and "white" crimes.
Murder and rape were deemed "white" crimes, and therefore
*convicted murderers and rapists were allowed to vote.* Burglary
was considered a "black" crime, so burglars were
disenfranchised.
Later revisions to the Mississippi Constitution enfranchised
burglars while taking the vote away from murderers and rapists.
That was enough to purge the state Constitution of its
racially-invidious purpose.
Mississippi's 1890 constitutional convention set the "gold
standard" for racist felony disenfranchisement. Their scheme
specifically allowed rapists and murderers to vote. How many modern
state constitutions allow rapists and murderers to vote, while
denying the suffrage to other felons? None! Maybe, just maybe, the
states which disenfranchise felons are simply trying to
disenfranchise felons of all races, not blacks.
I know, it's a sad thought - when a state *really* wanted to use
felony disenfranchisement as a pretext for racist
disenfranchisement, it allowed convicted rapists and murderers to
exercise the right to vote - demonstrating that it wasn't the
felony which bothered them, but the race of the felon.
Conversely, if you're sincerely concerned about felon voting, and
you disenfranchising all felons, maybe you're not targeting a
specific racial group. Unless you want to associate a specific
racial group with *all* felonies?
|11.15.08 @ 10:05PM|#
MNG, you're a bigot, a black-and-white thinker, and walking
proof that an advanced degree is no shield from confirmation bias.
You seem to prefer to argue in innuendo and unspoken premises
because you apparently want to avoid having to explain your
reasoning. You work backward from an already-held conclusion.
When you feel threatened, you lash out. Of course, MNG- I
simply must be stupid because my college simply
must be an inferior institution of higher learning. Why,
it's the south! And those Christian colleges! Tsk-tsk! They're SO
stupid and ignorant!
What do you think, MNG? You think the professors tell people that
Jesus rode on a dinosaur?
We've been through this before. Do you remember? I told you to
bring it via e-mail if you had the balls. You didn't then and you
don't now. You were a dick and a coward then; you're a dick and a
coward now.
Do you realize that in all of this back-and-forth we have never
once had a reasonable discussion? You can't or won't make an
effective argument. You stick to snide barbs and sneering
condescension because you don't have an actual fucking point to
make.
I think, MNG, if you could step outside of yourself and see how
horrid you are, how you are driven by assumptions that reflect
nothing but the shallowness and callousness of your own mind and
soul, you would be as repulsed by yourself as I am by you.
I'll make this easy for you. State a premise or several of them.
Then, state a conclusion that is drawn from those premises.
Can you handle that, Mr. PhD?
|11.15.08 @ 10:09PM|#
life in communist Russia was probably better than life under
the Pope in medieval Spain.
That difference would be a fine example to cite when explaining the
concept of an "infinitesimal" in an introductory calculus
class.
-jcr
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:26PM|#
"That difference would be a fine example to cite when explaining
the concept of an 'infinitesimal' in an introductory calculus
class."
(Let's omit a tedious discussion of the fact that the monarch of
Spain (or, prior to the late fifteenth century, the rulers of
Castile and Aragon, but why be picky) was the ruler of Spain, not
the Pope)
I think that the difference could illustrate the difference between
"alive but subject to a flawed judicial system" and "starving to
death or subject to mock trials based on communist 'justice', or
else murdered or disappeared on the whim of a paranoid dictator who
killed more human beings in a year than the Spanish Inquisition
managed to kill in its entire existence."
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Okay whatever, personally, I disagree with MNG and his reasoning
about 99% of the time.
However the South has an immense groupthink thing going. True,
southerners are really great people on an individual level.
However, and as Jim Bob demonstrates, the moment you are an
outsider - either ideologically, racially, or spiritually - you are
shunned by the majority of people there. Southerners have a very
defined set of values and any deviation from them is akin to
heresy. It's an us-vs-them mentality, and there is no where else in
the nation that such a xenophobic rhetoric is embraced. Worse than
embracing, southerners often parade it around as a source of
pride.
No other part of the nation, geographically or culturally, is like
this. Like the South, the Mountain West places a very strong
emphasis on personal independence... but they are very welcoming to
outsiders. Utah doesn't even compare to the outright hostility to
debate that panhandle-Florida and the entire Gulf Coast region
represents.
The closest thing I can compare it to, off of personal experience,
is a hardcore union neighborhood.
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 10:51PM|#
And don't get me wrong, I like a lot about the South! The independence streak and food and outright kindness (southern hospitality is no oxymoron) is to be envied. However, it seems a lot of the Southern states define themselves culturally as "Not Northern States" and so they tend to skew authoritarian in the other direction. Even as an act of rebellion, it still brings us to a very authoritarian end.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Bingo,
I think that depends a great deal on what *parts* of the South you
visit. Athens, Georgia? The North Carolina Triangle? Atlanta? The
Gulf Coast? New Orleans (between floodings)? Miami? Eastern
Tennessee? It is hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all
description, not that *certain people* don't try.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Rural or urban? Beef barbecue or pork barbecue? Bourbon or
moonshine?
Heck, we virtually *invented* diversity.
Hogan|11.15.08 @ 11:02PM|#
as a lifelong outsider who grew up in the panhandle of Florida and now lives in coastal South Carolina, i call bullshit on that. "Southern hospitality is no oxymoron" but down there they're not "very welcoming to outsiders"...? us vs. them shit is everywhere (which side of this debate first got started with the "one part of this country is practically talibanazi!" line?) Trying to generalize about the characteristics of citizens in an entire region is fucking stupid.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:02PM|#
Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do not give a damn.
I'm glad I fit against 'er
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.
I hates the Yankee nation
And everything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too.
I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fit it all I could.
I rode with Robert E. Lee
For three years there about
Got wounded in four places
And I starved at Pint Lookout.
I caught the rheumatism
Campin' in the snow
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some mo'.
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 11:12PM|#
Hogan:
Yes, they are very welcoming to outsiders because they are
optimistic. The South is the most optimistic region in the country,
given what they've been though! As soon as you demonstrate that you
do not walk in line with Christian-Republican beliefs you are
labeled an outsider and that hospitality comes crashing down
quickly.
I have experienced it first-hand and its... well it makes you feel
less welcome than outright hostility to begin with. Let's put it
this way, bars in the South are the only place I hold my tongue for
fear of my life. NYC or STL or CHI or PHX or LA, I don't care.
Atlanta-burbs or Northern Florida or anything from Arkansas down is
a scary place for dissent.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:16PM|#
"Just so you guys know, Texas is not part of the South."
Are you
sure about that?
"Texas played a part in the [Civil] war of which this and all
future generations of Texans may be justly proud. Its people gave
their full measure of courage and devotion to the cause. The
commonwealth which, in the short space of forty years, had
developed from a little group of three hundred families in the
midst of a complete wilderness, sent more than seventy thousand men
to the defense of the bonnie blue banner of the Confederacy. One
hundred and thirty-five officers above the rank of
lieutenant-colonel in the Confederate army were from Texas. Among
these was one full general, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, who fell
at Shiloh in April, 1862; one lieutenant-general, John B. Hood;
three major-generals, Samuel B. Maxey, John A. Wharton and Tom
Green, the latter killed at Blair's Landing in April, 1864;
thirty-two brigadier-generals and ninety-seven colonels. Of the
thirty-eight generals of the above grades, thirty-three were
promoted during their service from lower rank. This fact in itself
is a tribute to the mass of the soldiers from Texas, for it was the
exploits of the men which won promotion for the officers who led
them. Besides this, Texas contributed an enormous quota of military
supplies and provisions for the armies of the South. The state
government spent more than three and a half million dollars at home
for military purposes and paid more than thirty-seven million
dollars of taxes, in Confederate notes, to the Confederate
government. The whole population was put on a war basis throughout
the conflict and all of the state's resources were unreservedly
drawn upon to the limit to support the cause of the South."
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Mad Max:
I don't think Texans think they are Southern. Texans think they are
Texans.
|11.15.08 @ 11:27PM|#
The Republicans cannot cobble together an electoral majority
without the social conservatives, but such support is a
double-edged sword because it allows a facile caricature of
Republicans an inhibits the party's appeal to the libertarian
sensibilities of the average American.
Taken individually, most Americans you meet on the street tend to
be libertarians, without knowing it. How often have you heard
someone say that people ought to be free to do whatever, as long as
it doesn't hurt anyone else? And Americans' loathing of taxes is
legendary. Even within the African-American community (the
Democrats' most loyal base), there is great suspicion of government
and, for those who live in depressed neighborhoods and don't trust
the police, support for the right to bear arms.
However, the debate is hijacked by the 24-hour news cycle and
permanent campaign to the point that politicians must run on a
platform of what government will do for us if they are
elected.
For better or worse, a liberty-oriented Republican party will have
to rely on its most reliable foot soldiers, the social
conservatives in order to have the critical mass to influence
events in this country. However, if the Republican party tilt
toward liberty, its socially conservative supporters must content
themselves with being protected from government intrusion into
their faith (no small task), through the crafting of faith-friendly
policies that enable the socially conservative to lead their lives
and raise their children in a manner consistent with their faith.
Think tax credits for private schools and other faith-based
activities that nonetheless benefit the common weal.
Only when the socially conservative supporters of the Republican
party are satisfied, can real outreach begin to the socially
tolerant, fiscally conservative mainstream of America.
Hogan|11.15.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Sorry Bingo but again I say bullshit. I'm a libertarian atheist
and have been since I's a child; in my younger days I was a
semi-criminal/piss-everybody-off-however-you-can kind of punk,
growing up in panhandle Florida. I know a bit about antagonizing
southerners and I'd say most of them are plenty tolerant of
eccentricity and difference, in a takes-all-types kind of way. I've
only ever met a handful of people that fit the stereotype of
backwoods Deliverance fear-for-your-life-in-this-biker-bar
rednex.
But anyplace you go people are going to be skeptical of
"outsiders," that's diagnostic of being an outsider. They won't
hurt you because they're pussies, but folks around Greenwich
Village, where I used to live, can be just as
townspeople-from-The-Lottery-esque as anyplace else when they
confront a non-non-conformist.
i've overused my hyphenated-compound-adjective quota for today so I
will retire to finish watching Iron Man.
Bingo|11.15.08 @ 11:58PM|#
Hogan: Haha, Iron Man is awesome, might even be worth a BD
purchase!
But I think that the Deliverance
fear-for-your-life-in-this-biker-bar demographic is (currently)
what gives the Southern states to the GOP and that the GOP isn't
dumb enough to sacrifice it for a smarter and more agile
free-market free-minds platform.
Vote count matters, and the anti-pro-business (in the form of being
against tax breaks for lobbyists in DC and subsidies) and
pro-personal-freedom (in the form of more hyphens and getting the
government out of your life) just isn't popular. Neither are
nuanced yet principled worldviews. The GOP has a lot to gain from
the South if they can frame it correctly. I believe that both of
those principles are very fertile in the southern states, but they
are unable to see around the great elephant (heh) that is
partisanship.
As a libertarian, I would like to see them as allies but they seem
to want to be the anti-Northern-Democrat more than anything
else.
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 6:15AM|#
Religion is a highly communicable mental disorder. Religion and
homosexuality have one thing in common - neither is a choice.
Religion is a disease that is highly contagious and causes symptoms
ranging from homicidal and/or suicidal ideations, confusion,
inability to reason and illogical though processes,
hallucinations/hearing voices, extreme euphoria, violent outbursts,
narcissism, odd sexual obsessions, homosexuality (yes homosexuality
is caused by religion), and vivid delusions.
More people have died because of this one disease than all other
diseases combined. There is no cure, although a small percentage of
the population has a natural immunity. But not only is well over
90% of the population is infected with religion, society
intentionally infects children with the disease from a young age,
while different strains of the disesae (Islam, Christianity)
compete to infect as many people as possible. It's possible for one
strain of the disease to mutate into another strain. Since people
easily profit from those infected with a given strain, there is a
HUGE market in catering to the infected.
Any other disease would result in quarantines. But Hitler and the
stupid fucking Nazis forever destroyed the concept of
internment/quarantine based on religion. Any attempt to quarantine
those infected with religion (quarantine does not mean starve,
overwork as slaves, gas to death and burn in ovens) instantly gets
lambasted as "Nazi" and "Hitler" ... so there is no way to control
those infected with religion. But religious people should be locked
up for the good of society. Free-roaming religionists are dangerous
to every aspect of society, and make democracy impossible to
function.
While there's no cure for religion, it can be prevented by keeping
children away from it until they're 15 or 16 years old. If they've
been sheltered from religion up to that point, 99% will have
developed an immunity and will be impossible to infect for the rest
of their lives. Religious people know this, that's why they compete
so hard over who gets to "teach" the children, from the youngest
age possible. Parents want their children infected with the same
strain of religion as they are infected with. If you're a
Christian, it's not because you evaluated all the world's religions
and settled on Christianity, it's because your parents infected you
with it from the time you were born - you had no choice in the
matter, nor do you have a choice now. There have been a few cases
of people going into remission, but it's extremely rare and nobody
knows what causes the body to be able to fight off the religion
disease.
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the shared delusions of
these poor sick people in order to bring to life their odd sexual
obsessions for masturatory purposes.
The GOP now exists solely to give these severely mentally
ill people better orgasms. It will consistently give them
political wins in the South - the part of the country infected with
the strongest strains of CRD (Christianity Religious Disorder). But
that's all, and it takes more than that to win national
elections.
|11.16.08 @ 6:43AM|#
As long as libertarians restrict themselves to a Pavlovian "free
markets solve everything" and "government is the problem" rhetoric
they will stay in obscurity, for the simple reason neither is true.
(Ron Paul gained traction because he was the only republican
candidate against the Irak & Afganistan wars, not because of
his economic and governance philosophies.)
As for the Republicans, they either get rid of the bigots or they
will be driven even further down the road to insignificance.
PJ|11.16.08 @ 7:35AM|#
Murray Abraham: libertarians stick to free markets as solution and govt as the problem simply because it's true. It is Europe that believes in precisely opposite and it's Europe that slides into obscurity, irrelevance and aging populations. This is no coincidence: govt is necessarily less efficient than private markets at managing the economy, so there are fewer opportunities in the economy for people; irrationally under influence of fear they tend to stick to the govt as it is associated with something free in their minds and not subject to "vagaries of the market", this massive attitude of course exacerbates and deepens the problems instead of reducing them. And America has worse professionals and less efficient govt than European countries do. So your version of European socialdemocratic nanny state is going to be much worse. If Europe is future of America, it's rather decrepit future.
slippy|11.16.08 @ 7:36AM|#
since when do the Dems "make limited government a very popular
concept to the GOP?" limited government has never been a tenant of
liberal "ideology".. if they were able to reduce government size
and still function effectively and this would only reinforce what
the GOP has long stood for ...and expose the liberal
hypocrisy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
|11.16.08 @ 8:03AM|#
BruceM
Although I may share some of your views toward religion, I don't
think you're solution is very practical. It would require a 2/3
vote of congress and 3/5 of state legislatures. Yeah, that dreaded
constitution gets in the way of all good ideas on both sides.
I think the republican party needs to try to split the social
conservative vote. Divide and conquer. There are many young
Christians who don't see abortion, gay marriage and stem cell
research as the prevailing Christian values. They seem to be more
concerned with poverty and world peace. If the GOP could tap into
this, they could also gain a few centrist votes. But, they would
have to back off of the anti New Deal policies and the "shoot
first, ask questions later", cowboy diplomacy mentality.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 8:11AM|#
"Because libertarian are stupid beyond belief. How else can you
explain Ron Paul and Bob Barr?"
Lefiti, it's typically better to create a plural noun with an
"s."
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 8:16AM|#
Lefiti,
Do you really believe government is good at solving problems? Has
the War on Drugs defeated drugs? Has the War on Poverty defeated
poverty? It's frankly concerning to me that liberals and
conservatives alike seem to think that government force is a good
way to solve a problem. I could give a damn less whether
libertarianism is in fashion. Who gives a damn about fashion? I
care about whether is is correct thinking, which of course it is.
If Sam Adams and the rabble in Boston cared about what was in
fashion, we probably wouldn't have had the Revolution. Party hacks
on either side of the aisle make me want to vomit.
|11.16.08 @ 8:38AM|#
Bruce M,
You sound more fanatical and authoritarian than most religious
people I know.
|11.16.08 @ 8:40AM|#
I mean say what you want about religous people, but I think the vast majority of them (in the U.S. anyway) don't want to lock up people because of their beliefs.
|11.16.08 @ 9:04AM|#
No doubt about it. It is going to be quite interesting to see
what happens when Obama takes the reigns in January.
jess
http://www.privacy.es.tc
|11.16.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Jim Bob
Are you constitutionally incapable of making an argument? What is
your major at that Christian "college", advanced Young Earth
Creationism?
Seriously, I haven't seen one argument from you other than to
accuse me of not making one.
My argument was that the South is more theocratic (which I defined
above as policy substantially informed by religious concerns) and
racist than other regions. To support my argument about theocracy I
pointed to the stricter sodomy laws in the South, opposition to
homosexuality in general, the stricter state of laws on medical
marijuana, the higher levels of opposition to pornography, all
demonstrated either by listing of policy/statute differences or
poll numbers. As to the racist argument I point to historical facts
(slavery, Jim Crow) as well as contemporary statistics (the low
number of white votes for Obama in the South compared to the rest
of the nation, the out of porportion number of hate groups in the
South, the disparate impact and racial origins of felon
disenfranchisement laws [and Max, you consistently miss the point
that even if you are right about Manza/Uggen's classification of
Florida law that this does not disprove the statistically
significant GENERAL TREND they found], etc.). You see, that is an
argument. I define what I mean, what I would expect to find, and
then I give evidence and cites for that evidence so others can
evaluate it.
The closest thing to an argument I've seen from you is "I go to
school in the south and they are real nice and like black people at
the school."
"You were a dick and a coward then; you're a dick and a coward
now."
I think I've asked this before, what Christian college do you go to
with that potty-mouth? I mean really, why not give your name and
your college, I'm sure they'd love to know how you "argue" here
with confused profanity laced insults to anyone who disses your
favorite tribe. Or are you too much of a "dick and coward" to
identify yourself and your school? Maybe we can stop this silly
false machismo thing now.
People post under a variety of handles for a variety of reasons
here, because what is supposed to matter is the free exchange of
ideas and arguments. We're not here to make email buddies but
because we enjoy political discussion. Try it.
I'll make it easy on you. I've listed for you in plain numbers the
posts where I give the evidence and arguments I make. If you think
I'm wrong, then address them. If not, then shut the fuck up and
take your spanking like a man. They do paddle at that Christian
school of yours don't they (Proverbs 13:24?)?
|11.16.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Max
I'll give you credit over Jim Bob, you seem to have some idea about
what an argument or evidence is and attempt to address it. So let
me reply to your various points:
1. Please see above in my recent reply to Jim Bob my argument,
which I made before, about your "Florida refutation" of
Manza/Uggen.
2. "If felons are disenfranchised regardless of race, that tends to
show that it's convicted felons, not members of particular races,
that policymakers are worried about."
Not true if there is a disparate impact on one group. You and I
both know that there is a dramatically higher felony rate in the
black community. Now if Southern legislatures know that fact then
their ostensibly neutral disenfranchisement laws could certainly
have the intent of shooting down many more black votes (as a % of
the total for each group) than whites. It certainly has that actual
effect.
3. The sodomy laws demonstrate that the South was much more likely
as a region to make illegal this adult consensual activity. Do you
deny that? Do you deny that this supports my argument? You then
bring up smoke free laws. Smoke free laws do not ban the smoking of
cigarettes in your homes or cars. Sodomy laws did ban sodomy in
your home. But of course I provide several other points of
reference than sodomy laws.
4. Marijuana use should be an important factor to you as you just
brought up cigarrete laws (for public accomodations) as a counter
article of evidence. Do you deny that the South is less tolerant of
medical marijuana than other regions? That they are supports my
argument.
|11.16.08 @ 10:00AM|#
But CED, you still haven't explained why those governments began
disenfranchising all felons instead of specific groups of
felons.
I'm not taking sides here; I'm just trying to be devil's
advocate.
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 10:09AM|#
The First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion does
not mean freedom to spread disease. It's like saying your religion
requires you to have smallpox and thus you can't be quarantined due
to freedom of religion.
Religious people would still be able to practice their religion all
they want while held in quarantine. Just like people held in
quarantine for any other communicable disease, they could have all
the Bibles and say all the prayers they so desire. Free exercise of
religion says nothing of location, and the right can be enjoyed
from within a quarantine camp.
|11.16.08 @ 10:10AM|#
kusterdu
Good point.
As Max points out when these provisions were fist adopted by
Southern states many of them DID only disenfranchise specific
groups of felons, namely offenses which it was commonly known that
blacks committed far more of the offenses.
Some of these laws survived in their messed up form until they were
struck down post-Civil Rights era (see Hunter v. Underwood where
the court recognized the finding of the racial motivation of the
adopters of the felon disenfranchisement provision of Alabama).
Some, as Max notes above, the states simply changed to become more
"neutral" so it would survive scrutiny. Of course by the time the
change was made nearly every felony had a disporportionate number
of blacks as convicted offenders and resulted in disparate impact
on the black community. So it's not clear that this move
"demonstrates" that the motivation of the laws is neutral dislike
of felons in general.
|11.16.08 @ 10:12AM|#
"Religious people would still be able to practice their religion
all they want while held in quarantine."
Bruce
With all due respect, that's fucking nuts man.
You've let your "religion-disease" metaphor run amok with your
thoughts. And I say this as a convinced atheist.
|11.16.08 @ 10:18AM|#
"Yet the non-Southern states have shown themselves quite willing
to ban practices *they* dislike, like tobacco use - not to mention
the conduct of private employers in providing health benefits to
employees, and a few other things."
My argument is that Southern invasions into liberty stem from
religious motivations (theocracy). Hence an example such as a
non-Southern state invading the liberty of people to discriminate
according to their religious beliefs is, as I pointed out above,
actually supporting my overall argument rather than countering it.
You certainly can't say theocratic considerations guided that
policy!
Northern states invade freedoms to, I readily admit. But their
invasions, like the smoking bans and the gay rights stuff cited by
Max, are certainly not guided by religious motivations. Hence my
argument, the South is a theocracy.
I make a further argument that theocracy's are worse than secular
nanny-states (though both suck).
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 10:19AM|#
kusterdu: First of all, if they had their way, most religious
people would happily have all people who don't share their own
religiou beliefs either locked up, or executed. It's impracticable
due to numbers, as is my idea for the 5% of religion-free
individuals to somehow quarantine the other 95% of the population
infected with religion. It's not gonna happen, there's no way it
ever could. But it would be the right thing to do.
Second, you use the phrase "lock up" in a punitive manner.
Quarantine is not punishment, and I do not advocate punishing
religious people. They simply need to be held in quarantine so they
don't infect anyone. Quarantine should be made as comfortable as
possible. I'm not advocating torture, hard labor, beatings,
starvation, shackles, whippings, or anything even remotely related.
We quarantine people all the time when they carry a dangerous,
contagious disease. Religion is the MOST dangerous contagious
disease, and it should not be treated any differently than
smallpox, ebola, or tularemia.
I am fortunate to be among the small 5% or so of humans with a
natural immunity to religion. But I'm could be killed by a
religious person due to their homicidal tendencies (some would like
to kill me right now just for saying what I'm saying).
Additionally, I'm still scared that the religion bug might mutate
and cause me to become infected one day. What if I wake up tomorrow
morning babbling about faith, hearing imaginary voices, and
thinking I have a personal relationship with the creator of the
universe? It's horrifying.
Lefiti|11.16.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"Additionally, I'm still scared that the religion bug might
mutate and cause me to become infected one day."
If you're a libertarian, the bug has already infected you. We're
talking a faith-based ideology with messianic overtones. If you
don't find Ron Paul creepy and Bob Barr utterly repulsive, you're
probably already too far gone to be saved. Good luck.
|11.16.08 @ 11:08AM|#
BruceM,
I can certainly appreciate you're argument. However, CED, makes a
good point. "that's fucking nuts man."
It's not just a question of freedom of religion. What about freedom
of speech and press? You can't isolate or quarantine without
infringing on those rights, also.
However, one might make the argument of religion being a mental
disease. Then, they coould be isolated for their own good.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 11:17AM|#
How is libertarianism a "faith-based" ideology? Take a look at the recent Democrat presidential candidate for faith-based ideology. His entire campaign painted him as the Second Coming of the Messiah. He believes the state can save us by implementing his "great ideas." Then, there's the Republican VP candidate. She believes Jesus can save us. I believe it's up to me to save myself, at least until I'm worm food.
|11.16.08 @ 11:21AM|#
South=
Christian Religion
North=
Health Religion
Both based on faith assumptions vs. factual information.
Explain to judgmental Christians that Christ repeatedly preached
love and tolerance and you get ignored.
Explain to judgmental heathists that the hard science on smoking
gives them no bases for their assumptions and you get
ignored.
At this point in U.S. history the Health movement is much more
threatening to our personal freedoms. The health movement is
growing stronger while the Christian movement is doing everything
it can to not lose ground.
Smokers are becoming the new black people. It mattered less that
Obama was black than it did that he smoked. But, he doesn't smoke
anymore (at least not in public).
Elemenope|11.16.08 @ 11:30AM|#
How is libertarianism a "faith-based" ideology? Take a look
at the recent Democrat presidential candidate for faith-based
ideology. His entire campaign painted him as the Second Coming of
the Messiah. He believes the state can save us by implementing his
"great ideas." Then, there's the Republican VP candidate. She
believes Jesus can save us. I believe it's up to me to save myself,
at least until I'm worm food.
Magically you demonstrated how everything else is *also* a
faith-based ideology, but still failed to rebut the original
point.
Good show!
|11.16.08 @ 11:35AM|#
CED
If I accept your argument, Why is that so? Is it because there are
more "like" religions in the south? When large groups of people
share the same religious beliefs, they tend to make those beliefs
law. There are not nearly the number of late 19th and 20th century
immigrants in the southern states. Is it the fact that religion was
used to justify slavery, racial segregation and deny racially mixed
marriages? Does religion continue to fuel racism in the south?
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Elemenope
Ummm. Belief in human freedom is "faith"? I'm not sure that makes
sense. I wasn't exactly attempting to rebut the argument. I'm just
wondering how liberty is a faith-based ideology. Can you tell me
what faith I hold by saying that liberty is the solution to the
human condition? Do you think government planning is the answer. I
don't. Government planning typically leads to tyranny. I also don't
believe that faith in a magical greater being the answer to our
relationships. I believe that the answer is liberty, the human
dignity to allow other human beings to experiment and fail as they
see fit. I'm just wondering how that point of view is
"faith-based." I don't have faith in anything. It's an obvious fact
of human existence that people learn by doing and the more people
that experiment with ideas the better off we will be. Relegating
societal planning to a few elites on the left or right is
dangerous. It leads to slavery, whether actual or structural. I
have no "faith" in government or Jesus.
Regards,
Eric
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Elemenope,
I did sort of tee-off against the sides without explaining the
middle. I'll give you that. I just don't see how liberty is faith
or needs any further explanation.
Eric
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Joe,
So, liberty is somehow a religious faith? I just don't follow. I do
follow how the recent election showed quasi-religious overtones on
the part of the Democratic campaign, and true religious overtones
on the part of the Republican VP. Liberty is not a faith of any
kind. It's simply an idea which states that millions of individuals
will make better decisions than hundreds of government officials. I
ask again... how is that a faith? Let me give you two real-world
examples to the extreme. Government planning did not work in the
Soviet Union, and it is not working in Cuba and North Korea. You
could argue that it works great if you want power and absolutely no
criticism of the government, I guess, but such planning depresses
the creativity of the people leading to a declining economy. I will
not admit that these facts are somehow a faith. Facts are not faith
and faith is not fact. Second, in Saudi Arabia, a country in which
religious control has run wild, it is perfectly okay for the
government to violate individual rights by committing such horrible
acts as sentencing young women to gang rape for failing to wear
head coverings. Is such oppression a mere faith that I have? No. It
is fact. Government control, planning or whatever you want to call
it typically leads to such excesses because power corrupts people.
Placing the power in the hands of individuals... armed
individuals... decentralizes power and guards against such
excesses. How is that faith? It's a well reasoned argument based on
facts. You can't spuriously suggest that something is "faith" just
because you don't happen to agree with the argument. I know it's
fun to snipe, but that doesn't help advance the exchange of ideas
one bit. If you think right or left control of the mechanisms of
the economy and by extension your personal liberty is something
that seems like a good idea to you, then defend your position. Why
is government control of the means of production a good idea? Why
is a welfare state a good idea? or if you are more right leaning,
why is a religious state based on Christianity a good idea? or a
state based on Islam? Why are these a good idea? I believe I have
explained that decentralization of power through personal liberty
is better than these right and left solutions because power
decentralization protects the people from tyrants. Refute my
argument if you can. I enjoy a good debate.
Regards,
Eric
VM|11.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
a few paragraphs might not hurt. :)
LoneWacko can teach you. Maybe, then, you could teach him how
ToUseTheSpaceBar
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
"Max, you consistently miss the point that even if you are right
about Manza/Uggen's classification of Florida law that this does
not disprove the statistically significant GENERAL TREND they
found"
Two federal appeals courts examined the same historical evidence as
Manza and Uggen and were unimpressed. Laws motiviated by a desire
for racial disenfranchisement are unconstitutional under the
Fifteenth Amdnement, but these two federal courts did not find a
racist motive after looking at the entire historical record. They
upheld felony-disenfranchisement laws in two Deep South states. I'm
inclined to think that their historical analysis is somewhat less
biased than that of some felon-voting advocates who - as you admit
- have been guilty of basic historical errors in their eagerness to
prove their own positions.
Contrary to your claim, Hunter v. Underwood was not about felony
disenfranchisement. It was about disenfranchising certain people
who had been convicted of *misdemeanors.* The
misdemeanor-disenfranchisement clause in the Alabama Constitution
was found to be racially motivated, and was therefore struck
down.
Check this
map to see which states restrict or deny the right to carry
firearms (it's the yellow and black states).
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Here's another map along
similar lines.
The right to smoke dope doesn't mean much if you don't have the
right to defend your stash, man.
VM|11.16.08 @ 12:35PM|#
heh!
have you seen TheLoneWacko's posts (aka OrangeLineSpecial)? they're
something to behold!
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Mad Max,
That's why I said ...armed individuals... No guns... no stash.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 12:38PM|#
It would totally such if you lost your hard-earned weed. Dude, like I'm totally losing my buzz, man!
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Here is
a map of states with stand-your ground laws, allowing self-defense
against aggressors without a duty to retreat.
At the time of this map, eight states had these laws affirming the
fundamental right of self-defense. Four of these states were in the
Deep South. In Yankeedom and the shallow south, the right to
self-defense has less protection. (There's a lot of "legislation
pending" states, but there's no guarantee their laws ever
passed).
|11.16.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Eric,
First, using the word "Liberty" in place of an accurate,
reality-based term for your political philosophy is a pretty strong
indication of your faith-based approach. Why not call it
"libertarianism?" "Small-government conservatism?" Your use of the
term "liberty," with its dual meaning as 1) a
universally-recognized virtue and 2) a particular creed or ideology
is an echo of the use of the term "Christian" in the phrase "the
Christian thing to do." This sloppy elision between a set of
doctrines and positions on the one hand, and some transcendent good
on other other, is pretty strong evidence that operating on the
level of faith. "Lilberty" - why didn't you just choose
"wonderfulness?"
Second, it's not a matter of whether this or that political
philosophy IS inherently faith- or reality-based, but how
particular individuals or groups approach it. You can have people
for whom liberalism is a faith, and people who adhere to liberal
principles while also strictly scrutinizing the evidence and
subjecting their own ideas and the logic behind them to rigorous,
rational analysis. Ditto with libertarianism, socialism, or any
other philosophy. But then, the people who do that are going to be
less dogmatic, more able to recognize the pitfalls and
characteristic weaknesses of their philosophy in general, and end
up being less devoted to ideological, rather than intellectual,
rigor.
I'm not seeing that in what you write. I'm seeing very broad
statements about how things are always and everywhere forever and
ever amen.
I guess what I'm saying is that libertarianism qua libertarianism
isn't a faith, so much as libertarianism as practiced by certain
libertarians.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#
So, please explain to me why the Deep South is less friendly to freedom than the rest of the country? Or are the suppressions of freedom in other states more acceptable because "dude, at least they're not being all *religious* about it!"
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Mad Max,
You mean I can only stand and fight for my weed in eight states?
That's tyranny, man, tyranny.
|11.16.08 @ 12:51PM|#
The Republicans cannot cobble together an electoral majority
without the social conservatives, but such support is a
double-edged sword because it allows a facile caricature of
Republicans an inhibits the party's appeal to the libertarian
sensibilities of the average American.
Republicans could cobble together an electoral majority from
libertarians, economic conservatives who are secondarily so-cons,
and economically moderate social liberals. They need to cut loose
the Huckabee and Bush wings -- the big-government, fiscally liberal
and socially conservative bastards who are the exact opposite of
libertarians -- and let them tarnish the Democratic party's image
for a change. It would lose a few elections at first, but look how
much Bush has screwed over the Republican brand name. It would take
only one president of the Huckabee variety to drive a bunch of
swing states back into the column of a libertarian-leaning
Republican party.
Not that this eviction is likely to happen. Just sayin'.
|11.16.08 @ 12:52PM|#
See, look here:
Government planning did not work in the Soviet Union, and it is
not working in Cuba and North Korea. You could argue that it works
great if you want power and absolutely no criticism of the
government, I guess, but such planning depresses the creativity of
the people leading to a declining economy. I will not admit that
these facts are somehow a faith.
The fact that you think these observations about North Korea and
Cuba are somehow relevant to any policy debates currently underway
in the United States is an indication of the faith-based nature of
your approach to political thought. Even granting the
highly-questionable assumption that the adoption of, say, a public
system of retirement insurance is along a continuum with
Cuban-style socialism, saying it is a "fact" that the failure of
the latter discredits the former, without even needing to know or
consider anything about the former, is the equivalent of trotting
out the dead drunk in the gutter to "prove" that demon rum must be
prohibited.
There are many significant observations that libertarianism adds to
political discussion, and liberalism is made better by rationally
considering them and adapting itself to their insights - that's why
I come here - but a lot of what I see in the way of libertarian
thinking is, well, like what you wrote above. You take a real-world
example that can be useful for illuminating a valid point, but
instead turn it into a universal truth that is supposed to abolish
the need for any skeptical thought. You, meaning too many
libertarians, build the insights of libertarianism into a "seamless
garment," and that is the act of somebody operating from faith.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:54PM|#
A Gainesville, Florida native on the subject of standing one's ground. There may well be a pot connection, knowing the singer.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Joe,
I see what you're saying. I freely admit that there are problems
with libertarianism. For one, less government typically yields
greater danger. I would also suggest that in a libertarian world,
there would exist the possibility of groups banding together to
seize power. There are definitely problems with the philosophy,
just as there are problems with socialism, communism, fascism and
the rest of the political "isms."
What I am saying is that libertarianism is, as far as I've seen,
the better of any of the political philosophies I have thought
about. "Liberty" isn't "wonderfulness." It's a word that means
something specific. In this case, I am using the term in its
primary sense of "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or
control." On the other hand, "wonderfulness" means "the capability
of eliciting astonishment." Liberty isn't astonishing. It's just
good common sense.
Liberty, property rights and the right to live one's life as one
sees fit are all part of libertarianism. I'm sorry you saw fit to
semantically deconstruct my argument, which I find to be a typical
and typically disingenuous tactic of the intelligentsia. All the
words I used meant something, and none of them had anything to do
with faith. You could attack my argument based on faith if I told
you that right at this very moment the Fly Spaghetti Monster was
hovering over Los Angeles.
I stand by what I said. Liberty is the solution to the human
condition. People should be free to do what they want to and for
themselves without violating the life, liberty and property rights
of others, and government planning typically leads to
tyranny.
Regards,
Eric
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Country-music star Charlie Daniels sings the Libertarian National Anthem.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 1:04PM|#
"Even granting the highly-questionable assumption that the
adoption of, say, a public system of retirement insurance is along
a continuum with Cuban-style socialism,"
I would never suggest that a welfare state is the same a socialism.
I understand that a state can be capitalist in economy and still
provide welfare to the people. I further understand that socialism
is in its classical sense government planning, which does not
necessarily need to occur in a welfare state.
Regards,
Eric
|11.16.08 @ 1:09PM|#
In this case, I am using the term in its primary sense of
"freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or
control."
But, Eric, you're not. You're simply assuming the concepts of
"arbitrary" and "despotic" into your thinking, to try to build your
philosophy into an obvious good akin to "wonderfulness."
Who's going to support "arbitrary and despotic government?" Nobody
- not liberals, not socialists, not even Nazis are going to say
that. They're all going to have reasons why their uses of
government, like the defenses of property rights and other elements
of the minarchist state, are neither arbitrary nor despotic, but
reasonable and appropriate.
What is, and what is not, arbitrary and despotic is the meat of
political thought and argument. By assigning to your own ideology
some unique opposition to the concept of arbitrariness and
despotism, you're doing the same thing as people who call all good
acts "Christian."
That is, it's an act of faith. All good things come from Christ, so
obviously, anyone who seeks the good should be a Christian, and all
seeking of the the good means seeking Christ.
It's not I who introduced semantics into this argument, but you, in
the misappropriation of the terms "liberty" and "freedom from
arbitrary or despotic government" as integral and unique elements
of one particular political philosophy.
|11.16.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Eric Evans,
Is it possible for someone who adheres to a political philosophy
akin to your own - that is, small government, laissez-faire
conservatism - to treat it as a faith and use it to understand the
world in a manner akin to how a Christian fundamentalist uses their
religion?
Or do you think that adherence to your favored set of political and
philosophical principles is, by definition, evidence of the
application of reason?
|11.16.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Max
You continue to miss the point I've elaborated.
Do you think states that don't have stand your ground laws or
firearm restrictions or have smoke free public accomadations laws
do so because of the religious beliefs of the citizens and
policymakers?
Do you think the same of states that restricted sodomy or
pornography, or medical marijuana?
Now do you see my point, that the South is more of a theocracy than
other regions?
I'm not even sure I see any obvious relation between stand your
ground laws and liberty btw. I support the former though.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Well, guys, me and my fundamentalist buddies are off to bet on
the *Kentucky* Derby, drink some *Tennessee* whiskey, smoke some
tobaccy (and maybe some primo Mexican weed), stare at some Daisy
Duke pin-ups and hunt some varmints and/or revenooers with our
constitutionally-protected guns.
You Yankees have fun at your wine and cheese parties at your
smoke-free bars. Be careful not to defend yourself against any
belligerent drunks who attack you - self defense is frowned upon up
there, and what will you use to defend yourself, anyway?
Slingshots? Don't worry, I'm sure your nice nanny-state rulers
would be happy to consider your application for a self-defense
permit, and to review that application in a timely manner, so long
as it's filed in triplicate.
I can't believe we lost to *your* ancestors. Their stock has
obviously degenerated since the 1860s.
|11.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#
I can't believe we lost to *your* ancestors. Their stock has
obviously degenerated since the 1860s.
Stock? Degenerated?
And to think that some people say that Southern thought endorses
antique racial theories!
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Joe,
I believe it is possible for a person to adhere to any philosophy,
even a political philosophy, as a quasi-religious faith. Yes.
Further, I have at times in my life been a conservative and a
liberal, not in that order. My "favored set of political and
philosophical principles" is in a constant state of flux as I learn
more and experience more. I believe that the shifting of my
positions throughout my life has been based on the application of a
mixture of emotion and reason.
I do not think that I have the answer to the conundrum, which is my
I think people should be as free as possible to live and explore.
It is possible that this belief is faith-based, I grant you that,
but I believe it is based on reason mixed as all "favored sets" of
ideas are with a bit of emotion.
I would correct you on one small point: laissez-faire capitalism is
what I adhere to. I am not a conservative.
It is possible if a set of ideas is adhered to without proof or
reason that one could be acting as a Christian fundamentalist. I
agree. In my opinion, libertarianism, is based in reason. I do
agree with you that some libertarians blindly follow without
question any doctrine put forward by the libertarian party. I, on
the other hand, prefer to read Hayek, Friedman and Mill and then
draw my own conclusions. It that the correct way to go about
holding my favored set of political ideas?
Regards,
Eric
|11.16.08 @ 1:29PM|#
No, judging the validity of ideas based on their adherence to sacred texts is not the right way to go about formulating your political philosophy.
|11.16.08 @ 1:30PM|#
(and maybe some primo Mexican weed)
Don't get caught, hillbilly.
It's not like you're in Massachusetts.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Joe,
My brain is hurting now. Thanks for the sparring. Unfortunately, I
have to take the family to do something they think is fun. I really
enjoy talking with people who challenge me and all my
prejudices.
Regards,
Eric
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Joe,
Even after all the challenging, in which you offered little of your
own thought, I'm still an emotional adherent to liberty. Have a
great rest of the weekend.
Eric
|11.16.08 @ 1:36PM|#
The very definition of faith implies belief, where no fact exists. There is no "belief" necessary for one to exercise liberty. People who seek liberty are looking to free themselves from the needless restraints placed upon them by religion (among other things). There is no dogma or predetermined rules for one to do what he wants. There is a certain morality as to what infringes on the rights of others with respect to the exercising of free will, but this in no way implies any religious beliefs or faith.
|11.16.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"Or are the suppressions of freedom in other states more
acceptable because "dude, at least they're not being all
*religious* about it!"
My main point was the nature of the restrictions in the South, they
are theocratically based.
But yes I think theocracies are worse than nanny-states.
Nanny-states at least balance their restrictions with prevention of
certain actual harms, theocracies restrict based on "my book says
no x or y." This is why the sodomy laws are such a great indicator,
even their supporters had difficulty making straight faced
arguments there was much of a rational basis for the laws.
"I'm inclined to think that their historical analysis is somewhat
less biased than that of some felon-voting advocates"
I wouldn't. You know Manza/Uggen are not the only folks who, in a
peer reviewed academic study, have found felon disenfranchisement
laws to be 1. connected historically to Reconstruction in their
passage in many states 2. have a disparate impact on blacks and 3.
are statistically significantly related to group threat right?
Judges are political appointees and not historians nor
statiticians, so they are neither bias free nor experts in the
relevant fields.
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?osu1054744924
Preuhs, R. R. (2001). State felon disenfranchisement policy. Social
Science Quarterly, 82(4), 733-748.
|11.16.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I don't like the gun restrictions any more than you probably do.
I will say that I think sodomy, porn and drug laws are worse than
stand your ground or gun laws. I mean, in 40 years I've never had
to draw a gun to stand my ground on anyone but I look at porn
rather regularly, have smoked grass here and there and have,
without bragging, engaged in quite a bit of heterosexual activity
that would have been prohibited by the sodomy laws the South so
loved.
"I can't believe we lost to *your* ancestors."
I don't know what side my ancestors fought on. I live in MD now but
I'm not sure you're aware that as far back as I know my family is
from Virginia. You know, those guys who did all the heavy lifting
for the Confederacy and supplied all the major generals?
But yes, the North thumped the South. Even then the South was
blinded by their own sense of right and divine favor and failed to
take enough reality into account. And they got their asses
kicked...Some folks never learn from history (not a physical
threat, just a warning about how people that are obsessed with
their own right and divine favor tend to do stupid things).
BDB|11.16.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Gun laws operate on an urban-rural split, not a regional or even
partisan split.
Democrats tend to be elected in urban areas more than Republicans,
so the split my SEEM partisan but it is much more about urban vs.
rural.
Petie King (R-NY), for example, isn't a big fan of gun rights,
while the two Democratic Senators from Montana are.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 2:03PM|#
You see it on the state level, too.
Black, urban Democrats and white, Northern Virginia suburban
Republicans both favor gun control while rural Democrats and
Republicans are against it. This is why we were in the weird
situation this year of replacing an anti-gun rights Republican
Senator with a Democrat who was endorsed by the NRA.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Also, the reason the South has friendlier gun laws is, again,
because there are fewer big cities in the South than the North. The
Interior West has lax gun laws, too, for the same reason. Vermont,
even, in Yankee New England has lax gun laws because it is rural
(remember how Howard Dean got an A rating from the NRA?)
It isn't anything particularly special about the South.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Y'all still here? You missed a great party! We got into this
great discussion about North Carolina barbecue versus Texas
barbecue - I was about to win when the cops broke it up. Good thing
we hid the weed before they arrived.
"Stock? Degenerated?
"And to think that some people say that Southern thought endorses
antique racial theories!"
Dumb Yankees - can't take a joke. But then, that's understandable,
otherwise y'all wouldn't be able to look in the mirror without
laughing.
"Or are the suppressions of freedom in other states more acceptable
because "dude, at least they're not being all *religious* about
it!"
"My main point was the nature of the restrictions in the South,
they are theocratically based."
In other words, I *have* correctly interpreted your views. It's not
the oppressiveness of the laws so much as their religious
motivation.
"I wouldn't. You know Manza/Uggen are not the only folks who, in a
peer reviewed academic study, have found [etc.]"
The study I cited, in which Manza and Uggen got the origins of
Florida's felon-disenfranchisement laws totally wrong, was
peer-reviewed. So I wouldn't put too much faith in the power of
peer-reviewing, especially with authors who specialize in
confirming the pre-existing prejudices of the editors.
zoltan|11.16.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Mad Max: That means Texas fought for the South. That doesn't mean it is part of the South. As Bingo said directly below you.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 2:44PM|#
zoltan,
If they fought for the South, I'm not inclined to quibble against
their assertion of regional identity. They were there when it
counted.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Texas is a weird combination of the South, the Southwest, and the Great Plains in about equal proportions.
|11.16.08 @ 3:28PM|#
My stepfather, a born and raised southerner (Tennessee) had this
to say about the locals after moving to Houston from Detroit (a
long and interesting story).
Fucking Texas mentality. What a bunch of blowhards.
Having met many while in the Navy, I'd have to agree that the
percentage of loudmouth idiot Texans who take false pride in shit
they had nothing to with is higher than even those from the deep
south states Alabama and Mississippi. Not all Texans are assholes,*
just a higher percentage than from other states.
* It must be noted however, that all Texans elected
president were/are assholes.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 3:41PM|#
LBJ and GWB were/are assholes, but was George H.W. Bush really THAT much of an asshole? I mean compared to the other two.
Neu Mejican|11.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Second, in Saudi Arabia, a country in which religious
control has run wild, it is perfectly okay for the government to
violate individual rights by committing such horrible acts as
sentencing young women to gang rape for failing to wear head
coverings. Is such oppression a mere faith that I have? No. It is
fact.
Fact?
I believe poorly remembered factoid would be a better
description.
The case I am pretty sure you are referring to involved a woman
being sentenced to LASHES for being in an unrelated man's car. Her
"crime" came to the notice of the court because she was the victim
of a gang rape for which all the 14 rapists were sentenced to
prison time.
Just Plain Brian|11.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#
The case I am pretty sure you are referring to involved a woman being sentenced to LASHES for being in an unrelated man's car. Her "crime" came to the notice of the court because she was the victim of a gang rape for which all the 14 rapists were sentenced to prison time.
Sounds like that story is being combined with the one where a
tribal court in Pakistan sentenced a woman to Gang
Rape, but that was a rural tribal court, and not the Pakistani
government.
Neu Mejican|11.16.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Regarding the "beliefs," "Faith" debate above.
Nice discussion.
I do think that any belief has an element of faith involved in it.
Essentially, a concept that would be labeled a belief is one for
which there is not objective support. Many axioms at the root of
arguments, no matter how logical and well reasoned, are "beliefs"
that require a leap of faith; faith that it can be assumed that the
axiom is true without evidence or proof.
Political alignment seems primarily alignment based on these
unsupported beliefs. Whether or not an individual is "faith-based"
in their political thought may have to do more with how much of
belief system is based on deductions from these core beliefs.
Neu Mejican|11.16.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Just Plain Brian,
Indeed. A nice blending of two factual stories into a belief about
the Saudi government. Not a fact, but a belief.
Odd that both stories involve 14 men gang raping a woman.
Synchronicity or is there something significant in the number
14?
|11.16.08 @ 4:49PM|#
""My main point was the nature of the restrictions in the South,
they are theocratically based."
In other words, I *have* correctly interpreted your views. It's not
the oppressiveness of the laws so much as their religious
motivation."
Max, you surely can read the sentence that comes directly below
another one can't you? Because directly below the one you quote is
a sentence of mine that says, in effect, no, you haven't. Then I
argue why.
Directly below.
"My main point was the nature of the restrictions in the South,
they are theocratically based.
But yes I think theocracies are worse than nanny-states."
"The study I cited, in which Manza and Uggen got the origins of
Florida's felon-disenfranchisement laws totally wrong, was
peer-reviewed."
Jesus how many times can I say this: if they got one data point
wrong it doesn't prove the statistically significant result they
got from analyzing many data points.
Try this at home. Put the % of the vote Kerry got in 2004 for each
state and the % of the workforce that is unionized for each state
into a spreadsheet. Correlate them. You will find a positive
relationship.
Now go in and change Florida's number for the unionization. Make up
a %.
Correlate them again.
Does the positive relationship go away?
Ok.
And federal appellate judges, well they don't get anything wrong in
their analysis.
Good lord.
|11.16.08 @ 4:51PM|#
LBJ and GWB were/are assholes, but was George H.W. Bush
really THAT much of an asshole? I mean compared to the other
two.
From the all knowing Wikipedia.
Bush was born in Massachusetts to Senator Prescott Bush and Dorothy Walker Bush. Following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, at the age of 18, Bush postponed going to college and became the youngest naval aviator in US history. He served until the end of the war, then attended Yale University. Graduating in 1948, he moved his young family to West Texas and entered the oil business, becoming a millionaire by the age of 40.
So George H.W. Bush , while not being a real asshole is also not a
real Texan. This raises the age old debate, are the father and son
examples of nurture over nature?
BDB|11.16.08 @ 4:53PM|#
J Sub--
Yes, but W. was born in Connecticut and went to both High School
and College in New England. So under that definition, W. isn't a
real Texan, either.
|11.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Thank you, Eric, and all the best to you and yours.
An emotional attachment to liberty, like an emotional attachment to
equality or opportunity or humaneness, is a fine thing.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Oh Christ. Guess who is coming
back.
Doesn't he realize his national reputation was totally trashed this
year from his Presidential run?
joe|11.16.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Oh, that silly Rudy G!
New York City isn't Real America. It's not even in the pro-American
parts of America.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Seriously, has anybody fallen more in public esteem this cycle, aside from John Edwards, than Rudy 9iul1an1?
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 5:28PM|#
MikeM
It's not just a question of freedom of religion. What about
freedom of speech and press? You can't isolate or quarantine
without infringing on those rights, also.
Then the same thing goes for quarantines of smallpox, bird flue,
ebola, and other dangerous diseases for which we routinely
quarantine people. Anyone could say their religius beliefs dictate
that they be infected with those diseases and what, suddenly their
First amendment rights prevent them from being quarantined against
their will? That's ridiculous.
And again, they can practice their religion all they want while
kept in quarantine. You might be assuming that I want to strap them
to chairs and try to beat the religion out of them. Like I said,
quarantine is not about punishment - they should be made
as comfortable as possible. They didn't do anything wrong. They
never had a choice about getting religion and they are not in
control of their own actions.
However, one might make the argument of religion being a mental
disease. Then, they coould be isolated for their own
good.
That's what I'm saying, well part of it. I said religion causes
homicidal and suicidal ideations - they are a danger to themselves
and others. And it's extremely contagious, hell they all WANT to
infect others. They don't need rights, they need help. While
there's no cure for religion, they need to be isolated - that's
what quarantine means. Isolation of the infected from the
uninfected. Again, I'm not talking about punishment, and while it's
certainly an inconvenience I'd want to do everything to make
quarantine as comfortable as possible. I don't want any sick people
to suffer.
As for the person who said i've taken a religion-disease metaphor
too far, it should be clear that I don't see it as a metaphor. It's
a real disease with real symptoms and it's really, really
contagious. But again, I may be a lot of things, but impractical is
not one of them - I understand and accept that 5% of the population
can't quarantine the other 95%, even if it were something as
blatant as smallpox. But especially when we're talking about a sui
generis disease that's accepted and beloved by society, where
people are intentionally infected and where there is money and
power to be gained from keeping people infected. One of the most
prominent symptoms of religious infetion is extreme euphoria. Like
a rush of heroin. Functional MRIs of the brains of people infected
with religion show the pleasure centers of their brains firing off
like a heroin junkie while they're in a religious prayer-trance.
Trying to take religion away from them is like trying to take
heroin away from a heroin addict. They're not gonna be happy about
it. Incidentally, this is why religions are universally against
drugs - they see them as competition. Everyone rotting in prison
for possessing the wrong powder leaf or pill is there because of an
irrational policy made by religion to futher its infection of the
masses.
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Neu Mejican,
It's possible that it's poorly remembered. I have been known on
occasion to accidentally turn fantasy into fact. If that's the
case, then please consider this my retraction. It still doesn't
negate the fact that the religious regime is Saudi Arabia is
repressive, although maybe not as oppressive as I painted it.
Eric
Eric Evans|11.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Thanks for the balancing comment above. I would tend to agree that
at its core any political ideology requires at least a small amount
of "faith" in its adoption. By faith here I don't mean anything
religious, I mean more the belief that my assumptions are correct.
The future cannot be predicted with any regularity, but one can
forecast based on present facts, even poorly remembered ones.
Regards,
Eric
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 6:07PM|#
BruceM,
You better thank God for Godwin's Law, otherwise I might have some
pointed comments about your Final Solution to the Religion
Problem.
CED,
I yield to nobody in my skepticism of federal judges' wisdom, but
if, examining the historical evidence, a federal court reaches a
decision contrary to the conclusions of pro-felon-voting activists
who have already been caught misusing evidence, guess whom I side
with?
|11.16.08 @ 7:03PM|#
All of the articles and dissertations that come to the same conclusion were caught misusing evidence? Is a mistake misusing evidence, because if so I can cite you quite a few federal appellate courts "misusing evidence."
|11.16.08 @ 7:10PM|#
The author argues that the GOP must follow the reformer wing's
policies, ala McCain where sure success leads, or follow the failed
policies of Reagan? In case you didn't notice it is the insanity of
McCainism that suffered the greatest defeat the GOP has seen. It is
the embrace of discredited me tooism policies that advocate bigger
government and reject what remains the cornerstone of freedom in
this country and what made it great.
If the author's ideas are adopted I predict the GOP shall become
another Whig party. Irrelevant, insane, and the fashion of the
month for the out of touch.
Hope to see more articles like this. It reminds me how out of touch
the inside the beltway folks are.
|11.16.08 @ 7:15PM|#
I don't know if Reagan's polices were failures, but the guy was an electoral juggernaut. I hated the damn guy, but the GOP could pick a worse guy to emulate if they want to do better in elections...
BDB|11.16.08 @ 7:18PM|#
The issues Reagan ran on have either been solved or become
irrelevant. Chanting Reagan's name won't work.
Crime? It has been consistently falling.
Soviet Communism? It doesn't exist.
90% marginal tax rates? Don't exist.
Inflation? It was cured in the mid-80s.
All that is left is abortion, flag burning, and school prayer. Good
luck with that, GOP.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 7:21PM|#
CED,
You cited a work by two authors who were caught in an "inadvertent"
mistake which happened to support their position and which was not
detected by the peer-review process. Bear in mind that this was no
minor mistake like misspelling some guy's name. This was about a
Deep South state (one of the objects of your detestation) which
supposedly decided to disenfranchise felons in 1868, having
previously (before black suffrage) permitted felons to vote. This
"mistake" goes to the very heart of the case against "racist" felon
disenfranchisement. I showed that, far from originating in 1868,
Florida's felon-disenfrancisement policy originated in 1845, when
all of the disenfranchised felons were *white.*
Then you cite other studies, and I'm sure the authors of these
studies showed just as much scientific rigor as the first study you
cited.
|11.16.08 @ 7:52PM|#
I would propose separating the Republican party into the
Republican party and the Imperial party.
Republicans: small government, low taxes, personal
responsibility.
Imperials: police the world, bail out wall street, buy votes with
handouts.
I'm sure the imperials would eventually merge with the
Democrats.
-jcr
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Mad Max, like I said in my first post, Hitler and the damn Nazis forever ruined any notion of quarantining people infected with religion, because any such attempt, no matter how benign, will be called Nazi and compared to Hitler, and automatically dismissed. I specifically said quarantine should be made as comfortable as possible and there is nothing punitive about it - no torture, starvation, shackles, gas chambers or cremation ovens. The Nazis were not trying to eradicate the religion of judiasm, they were trying to eradicate the jewish race. "I renounce judiasm" was no defense to being thrown into a Nazi concentration camp.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 8:02PM|#
John C. Randolph--
I'm speaking about the perception of the voting public, not actual
facts. Sorry for the confusion.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 8:05PM|#
I agree that inflation has not ended, the feds have just gotten a hell of a lot better at hiding it than they did in the early 80s.
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Why should people with a dangerous, contagious disease that
manifests as an incurable mental disorder not be quarantined for
their own protection and the protection of everyone else?
I'm only saying in a perfect world this is what we'd do. But I
realize there's no way for 5% of the world's population to
quarantine the other 95%. So I'm not saying we need to start
working on building quarantine camps tomorrow. It's never going to
happen. But if we could just recognize religion for the dangerous
disease that it is, rather than treating it as a choice people
make, it would be a good start to improving the human
condition.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 8:47PM|#
BruceM,
Wait, I get it, this is a piece of performance art, right? You're
seeing how many people take you seriously before you go, "psych! I
can't believe you fell for that obvious line of bullshit!"
|11.16.08 @ 8:53PM|#
"In case you didn't notice it is the insanity of McCainism that
suffered the greatest defeat the GOP has seen."
Are you sure about that? I think 1936 and 1964 were a little worse
for the Republicans than 2008.
It's nice how people get hyperbolic about recent history, isn't
it?
joe|11.16.08 @ 8:54PM|#
This is ridiculous.
Mad Max found one error in one study, and has now determined that
he need not consider scientific or historical research when forming
opinions about scientific or historical questions.
Wait, I get is, this is a piece of performance art, right?
joe|11.16.08 @ 8:55PM|#
I don't know, kusterdu, that sounds awful historically to
me.
What do you think, Max?
|11.16.08 @ 9:07PM|#
It's worse joe, he found what he professes (I'm not sure he's
ever provided proof for his point, not like it matters) to be an
error in the recording of ONE DATA POINT in a statistical analysis
of the relationships between two variables across MANY DATA POINTS.
And for some reason he thinks that is endgame...
That's Max's thing though.
I put forward that there are a disproportionate # of hate groups in
the South, and the anomalous white vote for Obama in those states,
etc., and Max started linking to 1, then 2, then 3, etc., incidents
of racism in the North in order to "refute" my evidence....
|11.16.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Oh, sorry Joe. I didn't see your first post for some reason. Well, finding a mistake makes the study suspect but doesn't discredit everything else in the studies.
|11.16.08 @ 9:18PM|#
CED, was the white vote for Obama any less than for Kerry? If you already addressed this, sorry to bring it up again.
|11.16.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Check out the 10:41-11:12 exchange here.
Mad Max made the supposedly authoritative claim that "This is about
the prosecutor and the judge disliking the jury's acquittal on the
rape charge, and compensating by an excessive sentence for the oral
sex."
Notice he was conflating two charges I made (that the South has
theocratic tendencies regarding sex especially and they are racist,
I indicated the GA case as an example of the former yet he
"refutes" it by linking to a case of racism in the North).
Well, I had just enough time on my hands to click on his link to
call bullshit and google a bit, and called him on his
bullshit:
"Oh bullshit, this is about the strict idiotic statute Georgia had
in place that the kid was sentenced under."
Max, like a classic apologist, knowing when it would be too
perverse to push forward on such a front, just shifts quickly,
admits "defeat" (while suggesting, hey, no big deal), and then,
Protean like, flings feces in another direction:
"The Georgia "Child abuse" law was stupid and oppressive because of
the excessive sentences authorized....
If only this guy had been prosecuted in the Deep South"
Max has the answers before he starts. He'll keep flinging shit
until hopefully some of it sticks!
The Angry Optimist|11.16.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Run away! Hide, until I pass!
There's a difference between "scared" and "irritated".
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 9:24PM|#
joe and CED,
Put a sock in it. Unless you're prepared to show, with proper
citations, the legal errors in the decisions of two federal appeals
courts. I already provided the links for you. It should be
simplicity itself to locate the errors in these decisions, just as
I located the errors in the analysis of the authors who were
*specifically cited by CED* to support his thesis.
These two appellate courts were clearly wrong, weren't they? And
I've linked to their opinions? Then go ahead and show all the flaws
in their reasoning - I mean, you kinda sorta have to, since if you
believe their analysis, then major components of the "racist felon
disenfranchisement" thesis fall apart. Since these court decisions
are obviously wrong, I'm sure that you will be able to refute them
without breaking a sweat.
The "one error in one study" is, in fact, an error by leading
advocates of the "racist felon disenfranchisement" thesis,
regarding a Deep South state which is central to their thesis.
Florida isn't just any state, it's Ground Zero for the the
rights-for-felons crowd. Florida is the locale of the Great
Disaster of 2000 - that state's voting practices were subject to
intense study, so as to find out What Went Wrong in ought ought.
Florida's felon-voting laws were subject to intense scrutiny
culminating in a federal court challenge. If the rights-for-felons
crowd got it wrong *here,* with all the research and effort they
put into it, that would tend to call into question the research
they did in other, less vital states.
The other federal appeals court decision, of course, involves
Mississippi, and if you can't refute a federal court decision
upholding *Mississippi's* felon-voter laws, you aren't really
trying, are you?
So feel free to review the evidence and point out where these
federal appeals courts got it wrong.
|11.16.08 @ 9:29PM|#
Kusterdo
"But in the deepest of Southern states, which are also the states
with the highest African American percentages, Obama falls below
the Kerry vote. Now this is based on just four states, GA, AL, MS
and LA, but those are also the states in which Obama had his worst
performance with white voters."
Politco.com
BDB|11.16.08 @ 9:30PM|#
Georgia was MUCH closer this time than in 2004, but Obama did worse with white voters than Kerry? That makes no sense.
|11.16.08 @ 9:36PM|#
Mad Max, you are indeed making one think you are "mad."
Do you know ANYTHING about statistics? In a broad statistical
analysis how would an error in ONE DATA POINT be "central" to the
thesis? Did you read my 4:49 post? Understand it?
And, btw, several other studies by completely different academics
and reviewed by different academics found the SAME THING. You
haven't answered that yet, eh?
Of course joe and I don't have to argue about MS felon laws (and,
you know, two federal appellate courts can be wrong, the SCOTUS
decides this all the time you know?), since we are defending
studies of NUMEROUS states laws. MS and FL can BOTH be "racially
totally neutral" (as I've shown they are certainly not in their
effect, care to argue otherwise?) and the relationship in general
can still hold. You do understand that, right?
|11.16.08 @ 9:42PM|#
The South has demonstrably more unfavorable sodomy laws and
attitudes aboout outlawing homosexuality.
Mad Max: "Well, but, the South is better on smoke free bars
laws!"
The South has demonstrably more hate groups and a history of racism
and slavery.
Mad Max: "But, sputter, yelp, the North has had some racists
too!"
The South has had demonstrably a tendency to adopt policies, such
as one example felon disenfranchisement laws which have a greater
impact on blacks.
Mad Max: "But, I mean, two courts upheld Southern laws to that
effect (ignore the courts that struck down such laws). Did I
mention stand your ground laws?"
Look at those fucked up GA laws targeting oral sex.
Mad Max: "yeah, but I found a case of prosecutorial misconduct int
he North! Look at it, please God look at it!"
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 9:45PM|#
promotional material for the book "Locked Out" cited by CED.
One of the "facts" cited in the promotional material is: "The
disenfranchisement of former felons in Florida who have completed
their entire sentence likely swung that state toward George W. Bush
in the 2000 presidential race, effectively deciding both the
election and the course of American history."
Note also, that, according to the promotional material cited above,
the book "Proposes reforms that address the problem of the outcome
of the loss of felons' vote on close elections, *loss of support
for the Democratic Party,* rights of criminals, recidivism rates,
reintegration of felons into the community and more." [emphasis
added]
Impartial social scientists who simply go where the evidence leads?
Yes, of course. And I have this great bridge in Brooklyn just
waiting for a buyer . . .
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 9:48PM|#
CED,
So I take it that you're *not* going to try and show why these two
federal court decisions were wrong - decisions upholding
felony-disenfranchisement laws in two Deep South states and
specifically rejecting the historical arguments of the plaintiffs
that these laws were based on racial discrimination?
What about you, joe? What arguments do *you* have? What evidence do
you have to blow these decisions out of the water and show how
wrong these two courts were?
|11.16.08 @ 9:49PM|#
It strikes me that Max, like his ancestors at Appomatox, or hell his Catholic forebearers in the Spanish Armada, will bow in defeat to me!
|11.16.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Max
What are you arguing in your 9:45 post?
That's called the "introduction" to a scholarly article, the "why
this matters" part. And they say it matters because the laws
determined an important election.
So, wtf are you saying?
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 9:53PM|#
"Did you read my 4:49 post?"
Insofar as that post is relevant to my challenge to you to produce
evidence refuting those two court decisions, you said:
"And federal appellate judges, well they don't get anything wrong
in their analysis.
"Good lord."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't notice any actual evidence in
those remarks refuting the 5th and 11th Circuit decisions I
cited.
Mike T|11.16.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom and what to do with the sometime product thereof?
Aside from the fact that this is an oversimplification of social
conservatism, the reason is that libertarianism has a more natural
relationship with right-wing conservatives than left-wing liberals.
For one, right-wingers the world over tend to be more inherently
skeptical of how far the state can go toward fixing social
problems. For another, dogmas like original sin make it easier to
argue that government is inherently dangerous than it is to argue
with liberals, who tend to believe that mankind is basically good,
that government tends to hurt people more than it helps them.
Ron Paul is a perfect example of how one can be a social
conservative and a libertarian at the same time. What many
libertarians seek is affirmation of their choices. People like Paul
and I won't do that. We'll freely call your decision to fuck
anything with legs and an orifice your right, between you and God,
but tell you straight up that we think it's morally wrong.
|11.16.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Uhh, no Max. I don't have time to read the two decisions just like you obviously don't have time to read the non-Manza/Uggen articles I referenced. I'll trust various experts in the relevant fields before I trust political appointees not in the fields and from the areas being accused, yes. Silly me!
|11.16.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Max, I'm glad you recongize the excellence of appellate courts.
So you think the 9th circuit got the religious monuments case
right? lol
Bow to me like your pussy Confederate/Catholic failure ancestors
did! HaHaHaHa!
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 9:59PM|#
"What are you arguing in your 9:45 post?"
I was interested in your claim that the mistake of your favorite
researchers with respect to Florida was a minor "data point" not
worth worrying about. It turns out that, according to these
"researchers" (and I use the term loosely), the attack on Florida's
felon-disenfrancisement laws is central to their case, not some
marginal "data point" that they can discard without penalty.
There also seems to be a certain degree of . . . lack of scholarly
impartiality in their trumpeting the 2000 election results as a key
illustration of why convicted felons should vote.
"That's called the 'introduction' to a scholarly article"
It's called a *promotion* to a *book,* putting the authors' best
foot forward. Too bad that the authors' marginal data (which
happens to be wrong) plays so major a part in the books'
promotion.
|11.16.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Uhh, if you'd read the book you'd see that they are not limited
to the argument that these laws were explicitly racial in origin.
In fact the very thing you cite is clearly an argument about the
later racially disparate impact of the laws. You seem unable to
wrap your head around that.
Like your ancestors could not wrap their head around the idea that
if they rebelled against the North they'd have their ass handed to
them...Bowing at Appomatox...
|11.16.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Or that Protestant England would hand Catholic Spain it's
ass.
And then go on to be a World Power while Catholic Spain and France
wilted.
What's up with these lame things you are associated with? Fail
much?
|11.16.08 @ 10:25PM|#
Of hell, Max, the GOP which got its ass handed to em this
election...
I understand if you have an inferiority complex...try that Southern
whiskey to help it...Several Southern states are still dry,
right?
Oh shit, all but Kansas are in the South!
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1140551076.html
Oh well, drink Dandelion wine!
|11.16.08 @ 10:30PM|#
A little off-topic, but does anyone here consider Missouri to be apart of the south?
The Angry Optimist|11.16.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Max, I'm glad you recongize the excellence of appellate
courts. So you think the 9th circuit got the religious monuments
case right?
That doesn't follow, CED.
BDB|11.16.08 @ 10:31PM|#
"A little off-topic, but does anyone here consider Missouri to
be apart of the south?"
It depends on what part of Missouri you speak of.
|11.16.08 @ 10:38PM|#
TAO
Max argued the other day about the crazy wrongness of the 9th
Circuit.
Today he argues that the fact that two circuits found Southern
disenfranchisement laws to be racially neutral is "nuff said."
The Angry Optimist|11.16.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Disagreeing with some of the crazier jurisprudence of the Ninth
Circuit does not mean that one cannot ever cite Circuit Courts
foreverandeveramen.
So, no, not "nuff said".
Some decisions are correct and some are not.
Let it be known that I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't
find anything inconsistent with agreeing with certain judicial
decisions and disagreeing with others.
|11.16.08 @ 11:02PM|#
I always like how most posters on these threads look at the
party labels and ignore minor details like the actual actions of
the parties.
In other words too many people squeal about the republican socons
and utterly ignore the democrat socons.
The democrat president bill clinton signed the defense of marriage
act, the democrat gores provided us with the music censoring
parents music resource center, democrat hillary clintion's has been
actively attempting to regulate games, the democrats are primarily
responsible for the bans on trans_fats and foi gras, etc,
etc.
For some reason democrat actions restricting liberty are roundly
ignored on threads like this.
|11.16.08 @ 11:13PM|#
TAO
Do you you find anything inconsistent in arguing that, one day, a
federal appellate circuit is horribly wrong in its analysis, and
then another day, claiming that the very fact that two federal
appellate courts ruled one way is proof of the rightness of the
claims they ruled for?
Max has made no claims that I know of the "especial" fallibility of
the 9th.
Shit TAO, I don't like you but you're smarter than that.
If the 9th can be so wrong then so can the fucking 11th and
whatever other one he cites so authoritatively.
BruceM|11.16.08 @ 11:18PM|#
To say a criminal conviction is error-free and thus comports
with objetive notions of justice and fairness simply because
federal courts reviewed the conviction is the most disingenuous
statement I've ever heard in my entire life. In my whole
life.
First of all, you have the harmless error doctrine. Second of all,
you have the AEDPA's extremely limited scope of review. Both of
these practically guarantee a criminal conviction will be affirmed
on collateral review despite the degree of unfairness which took
place during the trial. A biased judge who sentenced the defendant
to the maximum sentence under the statutory sentencing range
because he felt the defendant was guilty of an acquitted count will
not, at a matter of law, be reversed by a state court of appeals,
let alone a federal court reviewing the case on habeas
corpus.
Judicial review of criminal cases used to mean something, but that
was before harmless error ruled the day, and well before the AEDPA
turned the Great Writ into a meaningless, useless motion that must
be denied as a matter of law. So please don't say a appellate
review of a criminal conviction is evidence that the conviction
and/or sentence is fair and just. It's an illusory process nowadays
that exists solely so prosecutorial/law and order types CAN say a
conviction is fair and just after being rubber stamped
"AFFIRMED."
|11.16.08 @ 11:20PM|#
CED,
Actually the 9th circuit is famous for being the most overturned
court circuit.
The judges of the ninth circuit are overturned far more often than
all of the other circuits.
The Angry Optimist|11.16.08 @ 11:23PM|#
Do you you find anything inconsistent in arguing that, one
day, a federal appellate circuit is horribly wrong in its analysis,
and then another day, claiming that the very fact that two federal
appellate courts ruled one way is proof of the rightness of the
claims they ruled for?
Well, no, because that analysis presumes that all Circuit Courts
are equal, or should be treated as such.
It is up to us to reasonably weight the evidence and come to a
conclusion. I don't think it's proper to state that "Failing to
recognize the correctness of one Circuit Court precludes cites to
all of them".
well before the AEDPA turned the Great Writ into a meaningless,
useless motion that must be denied as a matter of law.
I agree with the rest of your post, but refusal to consider habeas
corpus motions usually rests on the merits of the claim. You're
overstating.
Mad Max|11.16.08 @ 11:30PM|#
I'm sorry CED lacks the time to look up data challenging your
preconceptions.
I looked up the *two* studies supposedly supporting your thesis of
the uniquely evil behavior of the Deep South in regard to felon
disenfranchisement. The first source I sought to locate through the
JSTOR database, but they didn't have it.
Your second source was Khalilah L. Brown-Dean's 2003 PhD
dissertation for Ohio State University, entitled "ONE LENS,
MULTIPLE VIEWS: FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAWS
AND AMERICAN POLITICAL INEQUALITY."
Brown-Dean may not be your best source, due to her Constitutional
illiteracy:
"the Constitution prohibited forfeiture and corruption of blood for
any crime other than treason." Bzzt . . . wrong! The real
Constitution (as opposed to the Constitution in the author's head)
provides that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted."
It would be to joe and CED's advantage to acknowledge the author's
historical illiteracy, so that they can repudiate the following
statement by the author:
"By the beginning of the Civil War, twenty-four states
disenfranchised men who were
convicted of committing serious crimes (Keyssar, 2000). Although
this
disenfranchisement was usually permanent, New York's 1846
constitution did
create the possibility that the governor could issue a pardon
reinstating the voting
rights of these former felons."
Did you say New York? Surely there must be some mistake! New York
isn't in the South!
The author discusses European countries which, administering a
justice system directed almost exclusively at white honky
oppressors, applied the doctrine of *infamy,* by which (almost
uniformly white) criminals lost their civic status on account of
conviction of serious crimes. Never mind voting, these convicts
were generally not allowed to give court testimony. (Nowadays, of
course, we have a much more enlightened attitude, and "jailhouse
snitches" are allowed to testify against defendants based on
all-too-convenient memories of incriminating conversations with
said defendants. What a great progressive advance for poor people
and people of color!)
The author supports my point about the Mississippi Constitution of
1890 by saying: "By narrowing the scope of the disenfranchising
crimes, Mississippi was able to reduce the eligible Black
electorate without harming the size of the eligible white
electorate." See - "narrowing the scope." The Reconstruction
Constitution of Mississippi disenfranchised all convicted
criminals, according to the author. But this was too strict for
Mississippi's 1890 convention, because it would take votes from
*white* criminals.
The author actually bolsters my point by showing that
racially-discriminatory disenfranchisement schemes actually allowed
large numbers of white felons to vote.
Then the author accuses the North of adopting
felon-disenfranchisement laws in order to take votes from black
people. This actually *undermines* CED's case, since he claims the
Deep South is uniquely prone to such abuses. His own sources
contradict him!
Perpetrators of racist disenfranchisement, according to the author,
are states in the "South, Southwest, and West." So, CED, if you're
relying on this study, I suppose you would like the Republicans to
write off the Southwest and West, as wall as the South? Bear in
mind that this is a study you yourself cited.
Then the author finds that states which saw an increase in the
Hispanic population were more likely to be more strict with regard
to felon punishment. Oops - that analysis targets states outside
the Deep South, again undercutting CED's thesis of the South being
uniquely evil.
As to federal circuit courts, CED cited, as authority, academics
who had demonstrably made boneheaded errors. I challenged him to
provide *evidence* refuting two federal circuit courts' decisions.
Note that I expressed interest in hearing his evidence - I do not
regard federal courts as having any magisterial authority, as I
have explained. Arguing with a federal court decision, however,
means marshalling some actual arguments and evidence, as I did with
the 10th Circuit (not 9th Circuit) decisions with which I
disagreed.
Despite my longstanding invitation, CED has produced no arguments
of any kind against the federal court decisions with which he
disagrees. He merely says that federal courts are capable of error,
a point on which we agree. So show us the error in these particular
decisions.
|11.17.08 @ 7:56AM|#
Max
You are seriously retarded I think.
You admit upthread that the 1890 Mississippi Constitutional
Convention targeted their felon disenfranchisement laws towards
offenses the delegates thought blacks would commit more. How could
you not given the obvious historical record:
"In 1896, the Mississippi Supreme Court endorsed with devastating
clarity the discriminatory intent of disenfranchisement laws after
Reconstruction. The Mississippi constitutional convention of 1890,
wrote the court,
… swept the circle of expedients to obstruct the exercise of the
franchise by the negro race. By reason of its previous condition of
servitude and dependence, this race had acquired or accentuated
certain particularities of habit, of temperament and of character,
which clearly distinguished it, as a race, from that of the whites
- a patient, docile people, but careless, landless, and migratory
within narrow limits, without forethought, and its criminal members
given rather to furtive offenses than to the robust crimes of the
whites. Restrained by the federal constitution from discriminating
against the negro race, the convention discriminated against its
characteristics and the offenses to which its weaker members were
prone . . . . Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under
false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications, while
robbery and murder, and other crimes in which violence was the
principal ingredient, were not."
Later Mississippi changed it's law to a more ostensibly neutral
one, that of course still has a disparate impact on blacks (do you
deny that?), and the federal court you cite upheld this version.
But what was my argument? Does this holding (even if it is correct)
refute my claim?
My first mention of felon disenfranchisement laws at my 11:13 post.
Here is the quote:
"The South enacted felon disenfranchisement laws, many of them in
direct and quite blatant response to black enfranchisement (and
many targeted to offenses which had higher black offending rates),
and the South currently still disenfranchises more blacks than any
other region more extensively."
So I argued that many Southern states adopted felon
disenfranchisement provisions Post freeing of the slaves and
granting of the vote (do you deny that?) and that many of them were
targeted at crimes thought to be committed more by blacks. And you
ADMIT that.
Then you cite this federal court case over and over proving...what
exactly? I've already won on this. Dude, I'm afraid of the score
you must have got on the reading comprehension part of the
SAT.
Once again, to review, and slowly for you:
As evidence of Southern racism I noted the following facts:
1. That MANY (note I did not say all, so stop stroking your FL
example) Southern States adopted felon disenfranchisement
provisions during Reconstruction. Refute this if you can.
2. That MANY targeted offenses thought to be committed more by
blacks. (You admit this at 11:26)
3. And that whatever the current form of these laws, they still
disenfranchise a higher rate of blacks than whites. In fact a much
higher rate.
Dude, you've been chasing your tail here.
|11.17.08 @ 7:57AM|#
The very case you cite says this in its holding:
"Although it appears that the constitutional disqualifying
provision originally intended to discriminate against black felons,
its recent re- enactment by the people of Mississippi has not been
shown to bear that taint."
And I argued that that the original intent of many of these laws
was to discriminate against blacks. So thanks for the cite proving
me right! lol
Mad Max|11.17.08 @ 8:06AM|#
No, CED, you said that *current* felon-disenfranchisement laws are tainted by racist origin - the court said the opposite. The original Mississippi law allowed rapists and murderers to vote - ironically, that's closer to *your* position than to the modern disenfranchisement laws.
Mad Max|11.17.08 @ 8:12AM|#
So now you think that 1890 was part of the era of
Reconstruction? I don't see how that illustrates your historical
knowledge.
Plenty of non-Southern states had felon-disfranchisement
provisions. Do you deny that?
Mississippi allowed rapists and murderers to vote in 1890. Modern
felon-disenfranchisement provisions have no such provision. Do you
deny that? Or is it irrelevant because of your Willie Horton
fantasies associating rapists and murderers with black
people?
The felon-voting people claimed Florida disfranchised felons for
racisl reasons. They got their historically-illiterate asses handed
to them when it turned out that the original provision in Florida
disfranchised only white felons. Florida is central to the
felon-voting case - it is the keystone of their arch. Why you
persist in writing off this error as a minor "oops" which doesn't
in any affect their credibility?
Mad Max|11.17.08 @ 8:17AM|#
Nice attempt at retreat - "I was only analyzing historical data
- I never said modern felon-disfranchisement laws are racist." You
were saying that the Deep South - the *modern* Deep South - is so
horrible that Republicans should write it off. Your "historical
analysis" was designed to show that the *modern* Deep South is
intrinsically worse than those other states.
"Today he argues that the fact that two circuits found Southern
disenfranchisement laws to be racially neutral is 'nuff
said.'"
No, I invited you to examine the federal courts' arguments and show
why those arguments were wrong. Politically-inspired hack decision
should be full of obvious errors, shouldn't they? Even I was able
to find errors in your sacred social-science authors and their
texts.
Mad Max|11.17.08 @ 8:19AM|#
Here's one of the *additional* sources you cited upthread. (I
tried to locate the other one on the JSTOR database, but they
didn't have it). This is a source which supposedly buttresses your
point about the uniquely evil nature of the South.
"the Constitution prohibited forfeiture and corruption of blood for
any crime other than treason." Bzzt . . . wrong! The real
Constitution (as opposed to the Constitution in the author's head)
provides that "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted."
It would be to joe and CED's advantage to acknowledge the author's
historical illiteracy, so that they can repudiate the following
statement by the author:
"By the beginning of the Civil War, twenty-four states
disenfranchised men who were
convicted of committing serious crimes (Keyssar, 2000). Although
this
disenfranchisement was usually permanent, New York's 1846
constitution did
create the possibility that the governor could issue a pardon
reinstating the voting
rights of these former felons."
Did you say New York? Surely there must be some mistake! New York
isn't in the South!
The author shoots herself in the foot by acknowledging that
European countries, administering a justice system directed almost
exclusively at white honky oppressors, applied the doctrine of
*infamy,* by which (almost uniformly white) criminals lost their
civic status on account of conviction of serious crimes. Never mind
voting, these convicts were generally not allowed to give court
testimony. (Nowadays, of course, we have a much more enlightened
attitude, and "jailhouse snitches" are allowed to testify against
defendants based on all-too-convenient memories of incriminating
conversations with said defendants. What a great progressive
advance for poor people and people of color!)
The author supports my point about the Mississippi Constitution of
1890 by saying: "By narrowing the scope of the disenfranchising
crimes, Mississippi was able to reduce the eligible Black
electorate without harming the size of the eligible white
electorate." See - "narrowing the scope." The Reconstruction
Constitution of Mississippi disenfranchised all convicted
criminals, according to the author. But this was too strict for
Mississippi's 1890 convention, because it would take votes from
*white* criminals.
The author actually bolsters my point by showing that
racially-discriminatory disenfranchisement schemes actually allowed
large numbers of white felons to vote.
Then the author accuses the North of adopting
felon-disenfranchisement laws in order to take votes from black
people. This actually *undermines* CED's case, since he claims the
Deep South is uniquely prone to such abuses. His own sources
contradict him!
Perpetrators of racist disenfranchisement, according to the author,
are states in the "South, Southwest, and West." So, CED, if you're
relying on this study, I suppose you would like the Republicans to
write off the Southwest and West, as wall as the South? Bear in
mind that this is a study you yourself cited.
Then the author finds that states which saw an increase in the
Hispanic population were more likely to be more strict with regard
to felon punishment. Oops - that analysis targets states outside
the Deep South, again undercutting CED's thesis of the South being
uniquely evil.
Mad Max|11.17.08 @ 8:27AM|#
Ah, already posted that - well, enjoy it again.
Alexander Pope may as well have had you in mind when he
wrote:
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Having taking a couple sips off the old Pierian Spring, you get a
huge buzz. You look at a book by a social scientist, and you go -
"wow, look, a *book!* by an *academic!* With *footnotes!* Won't
people be impressed when they see I've read it!" This isn't the
same as critically analyzing the source material - in fact, it
precludes critical analysis.
You have a superstitious reverence for social-science research (so
long as it buttresses your conclusions), a reverence which is the
hallmark of the half-educated. Where the Protestant fundamentalist
tries to stop thought and discussion with the phrase "the Bible
clearly states . . ." the modern half-educated nitwit tries to stop
thought with some variant of "studies show . . ."
Just as the Protestant fundamentalist shrugs off any challenge to
the inerrancy of his *interpretation* of Scripture, the modern
halfwit is indignant at any challenge to his social-science
scripture. Errors in the text? Planted by the devil!
|11.17.08 @ 1:50PM|#
We should thank Mad Max for his contributions here.
Far, far too often, we see the term "ad homenim" used to mean
merely "personal insult," without any connection to a statement
about the legitimacy and accuracy of an argument.
That's now what "ad homenim" means. An ad homenim is a fallacious
argument that states "Argument X must be wrong because the person
that made it is bad."
See, for example, that statement that Mad Max need not consider the
actual statistical analysis provided, or whether it does or does
not demonstrate a robust correlation, because the authors of a
study are Democrats.
BarryD|11.17.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I don't really buy that Sarah Palin is "anti-intellectual."
She's not an intellectual, but that doesn't make her
anti-intellectual.
Sean Hannity (like his partner Alan Colmes) isn't really anything.
Hannity and Colmes each repeat some right or left dogma that I
don't think either man is intelligent enough to understand, let
alone articulate. They are codependent; either man looks dumb when
faced with an intelligent opponent.
Limbaugh is hardly anti-intellectual, and if one actually listens
to what he says, he's one of the better defenders of some
libertarian thought that we have in the popular media. Don't
mistake a blustery style for anti-intellectualism, nor vice versa.
(e.g. Ernest Hemingway was neither blustery nor an intellectual,
but he was hardly anti-intellectual, either).
Now, are some supporters of each one anti-intellectual? Most
certainly.
WRT the other list, these are people who stand for little or
nothing in the political discourse. I've read a fair amount this
year, particularly from Noonan and Brooks. I can't remember a
damned thing either of them wrote.
I can recall no great ideas, no memorable interpretations of
events, nothing. Personally, I don't think that the list of
"reformers" has had any real impact on the political discourse
whatsoever, and I don't think it's because people aren't smart
enough to listen to them.
Where Hannity may be an icon of "know-nothingness", Noonan is an
example of intellectual malaise.
Brooks' Reformers have shown no indication that they should be
looked to for leadership, or ideas. "Pathetic" comes to
mind...
I'm with Randazzo, but I'll take exception to his assumption that
Palin and Limbaugh wouldn't be allies of a smart, libertarian GOP.
I think he buys into the stereotypes of the left wing.
That's a good thing, BTW. We would need allies. It's not like Ron
Paul really went anywhere. OTOH, that may have as much to do with
his Noam Chomsky foreign policy as his Harry Browne domestic policy
positions...
Maybe there isn't as much resistance to libertarian domestic
policies as libertarians like to believe.
And last I checked, libertarians (not necessarily those who still
read Reason) don't all agree on exactly how to use the military,
apart from gratuitous bashing of whoever is in the White House at
the time. This is the luxury of those who don't have to worry about
what to do if they win an election. It's a luxury I think
libertarians would do well without.
|11.17.08 @ 11:05PM|#
. Don't mistake a blustery style for anti-intellectualism,
nor vice versa.
As much as I find it distasteful to agree with Al Franken, Limbaugh
is indeed a big, fat idiot. The MSM loves him, because he's a
caricature of a conservative that they can easily dismiss. He's
just like Michael Moore.
-jcr
BarryD|11.18.08 @ 12:41AM|#
jcr-
You sound like you've never actually heard him.
Rush Limbaugh has, in his finer moments, done a far better job of
explaining things that Reason commenters don't seem to care about
any more, like free markets and why they're good, than just about
anyone else who gets heard by anyone.
You're buying into the caricature. Rush Limbaugh is not his
caricature, and I don't see any parallel with Michael Moore,
either.
Sure, I'd love to have Thomas Sowell on the radio a few hours a
day, but that's not going to happen. Rush Limbaugh is a very
successful entertainer, so he gets a huge audience.
I know I'm supposed to fall in line with the groupthink, but sorry,
I don't.
Personally, I don't listen to Limbaugh for long very often, now
that he's not the best option here in his time slot when I'm in my
car. However, I have heard clear, accessible and smart explanations
of some of the principles that libertarians value, from Rush
Limbaugh.
He's not an idiot just because we're supposed to think so.
(And Al Franken was never particularly funny, just because we were
told that we were supposed to laugh, either.)
|11.19.08 @ 8:19AM|#
Here's an idea for the Republicans:
1) Never, ever nominate for anything more than dog-catcher anyone
named Bush.
Just a thought.
Bill Walsh
|11.19.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Absolutely spot on.
Lean, least-intrusive gov't (sane libertarianism)
versus
right-wing socialism (social "conservatism" that isn't conservative
at all)
versus
no public oversight through any regulation (fiscal "conservatism"
that empowers the richest to dominate everything)
Gen X and Gen Y voters don't want whacko evangelicals OR big-wallet
fatcats running the show any more. What they want is for government
to do the LIMITED things gov't is supposed to do well (hello FDA,
SEC, ICE, CIA??!!)and get out of their faces otherwise.
|11.23.08 @ 6:17PM|#
We can look forward to a revival of the GOP when no discussion about its future includes a single reference to Jack Abranoff's cabana boy, Grover Norquist.
More Articles by Anthony Randazzo
- ‘The Financial Crisis Was the Result of Government Housing Policy’, Anthony Randazzo, May 17, 2012
- High Unemployment the New Normal, Anthony Randazzo, May 10, 2012
- Tidequistadors In Search of Sound Money, Anthony Randazzo, April 6, 2012
Related Articles (Politics, Libertarian History/Philosophy, Conservatism)
- Is Ron Paul the Best Hope for Progressives?, Brian Doherty, May 25, 2012
- Scott Walker Turns Up the Heat on Flawed Milwaukee Crime Stats, Ryan Ekvall & M.D. Kittle, May 25, 2012
- Separating Church and State Money, Ronald Bailey, May 24, 2012
- Gary Johnson Marches Up Another Mountain, A. Barton Hinkle, May 22, 2012
- Is the GOP an Echo or a Choice?, Tim Cavanaugh, May 22, 2012
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|11.14.08 @ 4:40PM|#
We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?
Sara Palin and Bobby Jindal are going to have to really go after the Obama Administration's economic principles, because let's face it any tax increase is going to leave a bad taste in many American's mouth.
shrike|11.14.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Absolutely 100% correct, Mr. Randazzo.
But don't bet any money on the libertarian option at Intrade.
24AheadDotCom|11.14.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Great job, but I would have thought that the GOP would have already considered becoming more libertarian due to the massive electorial successes of the LP. What's that you say? The LP only rarely gets more votes than the TranscendentalMeditationParty? Oh.
The real problem with the GOP goes much deeper than which ideology they're going to have. They're like someone who could make more money easier doing something legit, but who just can't stop stealing.
The best thing the GOP could do would be to decide to be clean, for real. They could fight against all the corruption associated with the Dems, and I don't just mean bags of cash. To do that, they'd need to get better thinkers than people like Brooks and the Hoover Institution's David Brady.
24AheadDotCom|11.14.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Did I mention I have a blog? Read MyBlog.
concerned observer|11.14.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Libertarians are fucking idiots.
Jimmy Maas|11.14.08 @ 4:56PM|#
What the GOP should do now?
Turn off the lights, lock the door. They had their run, and then ran off the road. They don't deserve to survive.
JBinMO|11.14.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Today Sean Hannity was talking about the fact that Obama was a far leftist but he hopped (I shit you not) "the aww and majesty of the presidency" would chang him. Majesty?
|11.14.08 @ 5:11PM|#
The Libertarian Party is not libertarianism. There are any number of Republicans and Democrats who qualify as at least "libertarian lite". Just because the LP doesn't do well doesn't mean that some level of libertarianism won't work. I think the Obama administration and Congress will make limited government a very popular concept to the GOP, and, perhaps, to others.
|11.14.08 @ 5:18PM|#
The blastocystophiles and homophobes on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war--a minority faction of a minority party--have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom and what to do with the sometime product thereof?
The Angry Optimist|11.14.08 @ 5:21PM|#
The blastocystophiles
Ah, it's always best to impart perverse fetishisms on people with whom you do not agree.
JIN, do you have a better abortion suggestion? And is it any more or less rational than others?
ChrisO|11.14.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I think the Obama administration and Congress will make limited government a very popular concept to the GOP, and, perhaps, to others.
One hopes.
Individualism is a very basic part of the American identity, and the increasingly communitarian nature of the Democrats would seemingly make a libertarian focus more of a logical focus for the Republicans. Note that I didn't say this will necessarily happen.
If economic troubles persist and deepen, I expect that the "culture war" stuff will recede. That crap is mostly pointless nonsense for people with full bellies and fat bank accounts to argue about. Republicans would do better to provide a real alternative to the Democrats on more important issues, something Bush and the neocons never did.
No one seriously expects the GOP to become entirely libertarian, but going more in that direction is probably critical to its revival.
|11.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Today Sean Hannity was talking about the fact that Obama was a far leftist but he hopped (I shit you not) "the aww and majesty of the presidency" would chang him. Majesty?
Sean Hannity cements his claim to the mantle of "Biggest Tool on the Airwaves".
Akston|11.14.08 @ 5:31PM|#
When one argues against liberty, what is the alternative goal? Order? Control? Power? After answering that, maybe the next question would be "by whom?" or "over whom?"
Akston|11.14.08 @ 5:36PM|#
I'd maintain that most who opt for something other than liberty have an easier time imagining themselves in the "by" group than the "over" group.
Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 5:38PM|#
"Why would anyone who cares about libertarian priciples make common cause with those who obsess about who sticks what into whom and what to do with the sometime product thereof?"
Well, start with the fact that everyone on this thread - including yourself - is the "product" of the process you describe.
The products (ourselves) are kind of important, to the process leading to that product may have some significance, as well. Almost as much significance as monuments in public parks and the right of a kid to have a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.
Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 5:39PM|#
"so the process leading," etc.
|11.14.08 @ 5:39PM|#
We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but Ron Paul was battling against the Republican establishment during the primary. If they took libertarianism seriously and supported some libertarian candidates, I don't think they'd play such a marginal role anymore.
Running for office isn't just about raising money and getting votes, as Ron Paul did show. (Crazy, eh?) You need some of the establishment to support and push you. You need the media, sitting politicians to support you, voter lists, and a ton of things an internet candidacy alone doesn't provide to get successful. The Party has to make a choice.
|11.14.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Unfortunately for Republicans there were two aspects of its makeup that did them in: their theocratic paranoid base, and their libertarian economics.
|11.14.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Great job, but I would have thought that the GOP would have already considered becoming more libertarian due to the massive electorial successes of the LP. What's that you say? The LP only rarely gets more votes than the TranscendentalMeditationParty? Oh.
SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
|11.14.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Unfortunately for Republicans there were two aspects of its makeup that did them in: their theocratic paranoid base, and their libertarian economics.
What over the last eight years would you describe as libertarian economics? Specifics are always appreciated.
Hibiscus|11.14.08 @ 5:48PM|#
I think you mean their vaguely libertarian rhetoric on the subject of economics, TonyQ.
Joel|11.14.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Palin, Limbaugh, and Hannity truly do belong in the same wing of the GOP, the branch that has rejected intellectualism in favor of dogma, the group that believes passionate devotion to the "real America" will energize a Nietzschian-like will to power. Unfortunately, Brooks identifies this group as the defenders of the free market. That's not a reassuring thought for those who favor both free markets and free minds.
Dude. Get over it. That thing between you and the GOP, it's over.
The GOP piled your clothes in the front yard, dude. It changed the locks, okay? Take the hint.
If you live to be a hundred, the GOP is not ever gonna come crawling to the libertarians and asking if you can make it all better somehow.
Not ever.
Never.
Joel|11.14.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Seriously, move on.
Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 5:56PM|#
"...now is the time for the GOP to transform itself into something it has never been: a party of limited government based on explicitly libertarian principles."
In your fervid, nutjob dreams. Libertarian "principles' are about as in fashion as sideburns. The whole country is moving to the center-left and away from free-market fundamentalism. Shove you liberarian principles up your fat zealot asses.
|11.14.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Yes of course, they weren't libertarian enough. And the theocrats think they weren't conservative enough.
Geotpf|11.14.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Ben | November 14, 2008, 4:40pm | #
We do all realize that Ron Paul couldn't even defeat John McCain in 1 primary in his own home state right?
Thread over. The only things libertarians and Republicans have in common are support for low taxes and gun rights. That's it. Republicans don't believe in free markets-they believe in crony "capitalism". They don't believe in small government; they believe in playing Risk in real life and banning everything instead. They believe in blaming all their problems on liberals or gays or Mexicans or Muslims or gay liberal Mexican Muslims.
Seriously, why do libertarians continue to bother with the Republican Party? They hate you almost as much as they hate liberals; they just want your vote so they pretend to tolerate you-but they don't really, as the reaction to Paul during the debates shows.
|11.14.08 @ 5:59PM|#
David Brooks is a blathering imbecile.
Repeat as necessary.
Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 6:03PM|#
"Seriously, why do libertarians continue to bother with the Republican Party?"
Because libertarian are stupid beyond belief. How else can you explain Ron Paul and Bob Barr?
GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Anyone notice the "Is Your Man Gay?? (Find Out Now!)" ad on the side of the article?
Neither here nor there.
I thought of Lefiti & LoneWacko getting skullfucked by that model. It made me happy.
Lefiti|11.14.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Stick it up your ass, GILMORE. You're a fucking zit-turd on the asshole of the world!
|11.14.08 @ 6:14PM|#
David BrooksLefTitty is a blathering imbecile.Repeat as necessary.
Jordan|11.14.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Translation: I can't answer J sub D's question so I'll just move along.
T|11.14.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Yes of course, they weren't libertarian enough.
Observation would lead one to believe the party occupying the white house the past 8 years hasn't been libertarian at all. But keep insisting they were, against all available evidence.
GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Lefiti | November 14, 2008, 6:03pm | #
Because libertarian are stupid beyond belief.
har
I think of you spending all this time repeating, "nya nya nya! you dumb! you zealot! in your asscunt!", and get mild pleasure from realizing what a total fucking waste of time your life is.
the "fundamentalist" line is my favorite. Somehow being generally in favor of smaller government and liberal trade rules, makes a person a fundamentalist these days... i suppose that makes sense from the POV of someone so deep in the weeds of some kind of fantasy world.
really, name a policy. Pick one. State what you think is a reasonable position. Discuss. I've never heard you have an opinion on anything, except a passion for poop slinging and masturbating in public
Doug|11.14.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Conservative Talk Radio: Simple Answers for the Simple Minded
Umm, the no-sideburns look went out of style about the time Reagan left office.
|11.14.08 @ 6:33PM|#
"Observation would lead one to believe the party occupying the white house the past 8 years hasn't been libertarian at all."
I know that and you know that. I also know that they weren't conservative by any important definition of the word either. The question is, were conservatives defending their principles despite what the Bush administration did the whole way through, or are they just now coming to the realization? Were libertarians railing against their economic policies all these years or were they too busy poxing both houses while the American public was realizing that, regardless of the ideological foundation, Democrats were simply much better stewards of their economy?
Indeed, the relationship between the Republican party and both libertarian economics and social conservatism was mostly one of rhetoric. But too many people bought it, and now social conservatives and libertarians are on the outs for a long time. A lot of people think Obama is a socialist (and possible terrorist) and they voted for him anyway because they'd rather have a socialist terrorist in office than another effing Republican.
|11.14.08 @ 6:38PM|#
If anyone gets past the scatology posted here, those libertarians who are interested in working within the Republican Party to change it are in the Republican Liberty Caucus ... which is doing quite well, thank you.
www.RLC.org
|11.14.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Hey, Bill, I haven't written you guys off, yet. This defeat is definitely the best chance the RLC has to make real inroads in the GOP. Even without "taking over", a little more limited government flavor would be a great improvement.
James|11.14.08 @ 6:49PM|#
All right, I'll bite.
How will we know when the labor market is "demanding" that we open the borders?
And how will opening the borders to people who are, lets face it, socialists, help the idea of libertarianism? We ARE still defining libertarianism as opposition to the growth of the state, right? I wonder sometimes.
James|11.14.08 @ 6:56PM|#
"The blastocystophiles and homophobes on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war--a minority faction of a minority party--have a stranglehold on the Republican Party."
Riiiihgt.
Meanwhile, which party just managed to get elected President a man who close ties to actual terrorists? Hint, it does not being with "R".
Akston|11.14.08 @ 6:58PM|#
For those holding out hope for the panacea of a Democrat renaissance empowered by control over at least two branches of government - I, recent Republican experience, and that Lord Acton fellow would suggest that you might well be disappointed.
Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 7:13PM|#
New here? If you're truly interested in the answer to that question (which is yes), the reason archives are all available, and the criticism of this administration's economic policies has been going on "all these years"
|11.14.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Maybe libertarian-minded folks should start supporting an electoral system that could keep the GOP closer to its roots.
Sam Grove|11.14.08 @ 7:18PM|#
There is no "libertarian economics".
GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 7:20PM|#
...And how will opening the borders to people who are, lets face it, socialists...
Oh, come on already.
People come here to *work*.
When you water down your definition of socialism down to "people who will vote Dem because they're less likely to get fucking deported or imprisoned", then whats the point of debate?
"Socialism" has been turned into a buzzphrase these days with no substance to it at all. It's basically a style point, asserting the speaker is somehow "free market"?? But free market... up to a point where its Free for Me but Not for Thee. Free labor markets are a net boon to a free market economy, and a sensible and simple policy of immigration reform that lowers the barriers to honest people who want to contribute to our economy is not anti American in any way, and consistent with traditional liberal economic views. I mean classical liberal, not bleeding heart unionists obviously.
Also, the claim that we're importing leftists is silly and lacking any serious awareness of how new citizens vote once they've got skin in the game. First generation immigrants may demand social services, but their children are usually among the first to demand ownership rights in our society, and are often the most vociferously patriotic and encouraging of maintaining a liberal free market system because that is the best possible system for people to advance from poverty or dependence into an improvement of quality of their lives and standards of living.
the truth is, the most liberal and leftist citizens in this country are the naive offspring of our comfy middle class boomers. College kids who have never had a job, and have limited notions about political ideas or history, and are generally the source of the starry eyed weepyness about "the poor" or "minorities", people they do not know, and have no connection with on any real level. If you want to fight creeping leftists, your battleground is the halls of "higher" education, not the border. While I am no pro-lifer, if the GOP wanted to find a bloc that would advance restrictions on abortion, immigrants are probably the most pro-"family values" group in our country. What they want is a shitty job, and a chance for their kids to have a less shitty job. Demonizing immigrants as some sort of political movement that seeks to undermine the basics of a free market system is laughable, and should be abandoned if anyone wants to be taken seriously.
Joshua Holmes|11.14.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Pundit's fallacy: The path to success is to adopt my ideas.
The GOP lost because of a spectacularly lousy president who had the misfortune to be in office in the wake of an economic crash several months before the election.
|11.14.08 @ 7:29PM|#
The GOP needs to not be a Southern-led Party. The South has a lot of good points, but let's face it, it's pretty out of step with the rest of the nation, and to the extent that the South dominates the GOP it will be seen as this strange reactionary force...
The South has and has had some real funky racial concerns that leads it to some pretty bizarre viewpoints. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina comprise a mindset that is an interesting example of the century. The 18th century.
The Bearded Hobbit|11.14.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Oh, what a fantasy land we live in here at H&R. "The world is breathlessly awaiting the return of the Libertarians to save those poor Republicans from themselves!"
Joel nailed it as far as I can see. I'd figure the chances that the R's are going to suddenly come to their senses and embrace libertarian principles is about the same as the percentage of votes that the LP drew ten days ago; what was that, about 0.4%? How many members of Congress show any libertarian leanings? I'll bet I could count them on one hand and probably wouldn't need the thumb.
The most common perception about how things are done by the government is that "the reason we failed is that we just didn't try hard enough!" If anything, the R's will go more and more off the theocratic deep end.
.. Hobbit
Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:31PM|#
GILMORE-
Hear, hear! (Here, here?)
|11.14.08 @ 7:33PM|#
The Deep South should just have its own party, if they don't want to think of new nomenclature they could just somewhat accurately call it the "Nazi-Taliban Party*" and they could get 20% of the vote every four years and we could just ignore them. Then the GOP could be a party of intellectual conservative (prudence) and libertarian (small government) and the Democrats could be the party of liberalism (John Stuard Mills) and I would have a real choice.
* Racists and fundies
shrike|11.14.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Good stuff, GILMORE.
IMO, the problem with libertarianism (my default view on everything) is that they face up to life in a democratic republic.
The vast majority of people prefer regulations for GOOD REASONS. (go back in time to see)
Food inspection
Child labor laws
FDIC
Anti-trust
Union rights
Disease control (CDC)
HazMat control
Bank regs
etc etc etc
The LP looks like fools to the average citizen for resisting these regulations.
Yeah - I know the academic crap about "market self regulation" - but that is all that it is. People will fuck anyone over to make a dime.
shrike|11.14.08 @ 7:37PM|#
CAN'T face up to democracy ,,,,
Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:40PM|#
I also agree with CED. One of the steps in this direction is to re-engage with urban areas the way Jack Kemp and Rudy Giuliani did back in the day, but has fallen off the wayside over the last decade. Stuff like small business licensing reform, eminent domain reform, and other similar stuff that is color blind and in fact most affects the upwardly mobile but at present lower income urban dweller. The kind of middle class republicanism that used to blanket the ohio and misouri river valleys.
|11.14.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Of course, there's no libertarian economics. There's just defaulting to a position of no regulation or government interference of any kind and then saying well things weren't libertarian enough when it all goes to hell.
|11.14.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Libertarian "principles' are about as in fashion as sideburns.
Not all of us are shallow or immature enough to just believe what's "fashionable."
Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 7:45PM|#
The vast majority of people prefer regulations for GOOD REASONS.
The vast majority of people are fine with regulations that they see in their interest and are perfectly happy as long as they're on other people. And the big stuff ain't going away. But the niche is to try to get rid of some of the micro-regulations that make it difficult to try to start out on your own. For instance the kind of stuff that was illustrated in Wire when the one guy tried to start up a youth boxing gym and was stymied until he got the corrupt state representative to intervene.
|11.14.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Naturally I agree with the gist of the article, but it's sort of predictable coming from a libertarian magazine. I'd be more heartened to hear David Brooks running around going "Hey, why doesn't the GOP get more socially liberal?"
The battle in the Republican party isn't between traditionalists and reformers, it's between people who want to get more socially moderate, and those who want to move left on economics.
I think we can both agree that it should get more socially moderate, it's just hard to convince Republicans that they need to spank their own base in order to win elections. Palin represents the tried and true formula. But there's no leader out there for the other side.
I think the Republicans can't win on a socially conservative, big government platform. That was Bush, despite rumors to the contrary. Or even a centrist Democrat-lite platform (what Brooks wants). They just don't know it yet.
I think they can win on a socially liberal, small government platform. It's just going to take a lot of hard work. It necessitates abandoning certain parts of the socially conservative base and winning over people who are currently centrist Democrats. It's going to be very difficult to convince Republicans that they need to do that.
Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Like making sure that the homeless don't get food poisoning from eating homecooked meals.
GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 7:54PM|#
shrike =
I think you need to get beyond the "ism" issue, and realize that many people of all political stripes realize that our system has overextended itself horribly beyond its basic mandates and has become an encroaching problem that affects our lives negatively in wide variety of ways.
While there are many positive effects of regulation of the areas you mention, almost all have also been used for venal or stupidly political ends that drive people of "libertarianish" views to take pause and start to fight back so that these systems dont continue to become tools of a bloated political patrimony system, which frankly, almost all of the examples you offer have an element of =
e.g.
"Food inspection
- ridiculous restrictions on foreign trade justified by isolated examples of bad actors like china and the melamine scandal recently
Child labor laws
- punishing corporations for bringing jobs to foreign markets where standards are lax and jobs provide some opportunity and improvement to lives of indigent subsidence-level classes
FDIC
- .... uh. Whens the last time free marketers got their panties twisted by the FDIC
Anti-trust
- libertoids are generally supportive of anti-competitive enforcement
Union rights
- oh, come on, fuck them.
... meaning, no one except the anarchists and some weirder fringe big L libertarians are so naive to think that we should abolish the regulatory elements in federal government = most simply want to roll back the thousands of horrible unintended effects of poor implementation and exploitation of these systems by political cronies and power hungry bureaucrats
|11.14.08 @ 8:04PM|#
"Stuff like small business licensing reform, eminent domain reform, and other similar stuff that is color blind and in fact most affects the upwardly mobile but at present lower income urban dweller."
Kolohe is right (easy for me to say when he starts by saying he agrees with me, but hey, he is). GOP mayors that win in blue areas show that small government ideas can win anywhere as long as they are not wrapped in Huckabee-ism or Palin-ism. Small government can have a "cosmopolitan" face.
You don't have to take everything that the ubran GOPers adopt (I think Bloomberg's gun control stuff is stinky), but looking to them would be smart.
shrike|11.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#
Another good post, GILMORE. That is why I supported Ron Paul before I did Obama this year (but only as a Republican).
RP is pragmatic. He knew Social Security was here to stay. The "weird fringe" types you point to are yelling "Socialism" to this view. This does no good for the cause. It didn't help McCain either.
|11.14.08 @ 8:06PM|#
The South is what? Um, why don't we just round up all those nasty Southerners then?
DannyK|11.14.08 @ 8:12PM|#
Shrike, that's a good point. I've been in political discussions with a mixed group before and seen how people are genuinely interested in the libertarian viewpoint until you hit something like "No child labor laws!" or "No food inspection!"
And then shutters come down over the faces and everybody stops listening to that guy.
Just Plain Brian|11.14.08 @ 8:14PM|#
They did - the south is where they put everybody. I don't know about you, but that's how I wound up living down here.
GILMORE|11.14.08 @ 8:25PM|#
har har.
the "South" represents some of the best and worst elements of this country. Pro L, you shouldnt get your fur ruffled. There's some truth to southern states being a bastion of social conservatism and semi-frequent hysterical xenophobia or racism... the dissing on the south is over 100yrs old. Much of it deserved. But most people who make generic pronunciations about "southern" issues often dont know what they're talking about in any detail.
I think the rest of the country still has a lot to learn from "the south", or at least its better nature. I think my concepts of generosity, courtesy and dignity come from my southern family. Not that there's a tremendous dearth of these things... well ok, in northern cities, there often are, but elements of southern culture are certainly widely under-appreciated.
collard greens, biscuits, whiskey and girls being my personal faves.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:35PM|#
"GILMORE | November 14, 2008, 7:20pm | #
"Socialism" has been turned into a buzzphrase these days with no substance to it at all."
Thank God someone finally pointed out the obvious! I hate how that phrase has been used. Pretty soon it will end up being just as meaningless as "Fascism".
|11.14.08 @ 8:36PM|#
I'm hardly a blind apologist for the South, but it's a whole lot better and a whole lot more diverse than some people appear to believe. I find it interesting that the very people who seem to generalize about and express hatred towards Southerners are otherwise obsessed by identity politics. Odd.
My family has been in the South for a very long time--way before the Civil War. And in my principal family lines, the commitment to character, education, and hard work seem to run strong.
Mmm, whiskey and food. I'm down to one Southern girl, though--my wife. She's from Virginia.
|11.14.08 @ 8:44PM|#
"people are genuinely interested in the libertarian viewpoint until you hit something like "No child labor laws!" or "No food inspection!""
Because that shit is nuts. Allowing child labor and barring government food inspections would limit more liberty than they would advance. Children cannot make contracts reasonably and so you would simply have parents willing to pimp their kids. And knowing that anybody who offers food to the public is open to public inspection, no matter how imprefect, makes people have more faith in food choices and so they do not have to fear everytime they buy food, freeing them up to do other things and worry about other concerns. Since bad food can KILL you this kind of thing is best not left to the market (where if food producer x kills dozens of people we can punish him by not buying his product; this is too late).
"but it's a whole lot better and a whole lot more diverse than some people appear to believe."
Well duh. But that doesn't mean that it is not comparitvely fucked up. I was born and lived 26 years in VA. There are many good things about the South. But politically, it's a Dark Ages type of scene.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:47PM|#
It isn't anymore "dark ages" than the U of Ohio or Pennsyltucky, two very northern places.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Oh yeah, and Alaska. Yeah, thats far north and REAL enlightened. Not.
|11.14.08 @ 8:55PM|#
BDB
I mean the political culture of the Deep South is very, very different than the rest of the nation. Shit, Alaska is not close to the Talibanocracy of Georgia, Alabama, etc.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Worse than Utah, CED? Really?
Utah < Atlanta or Charlotte?
|11.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#
VA is not only not part of the fucked up Deep South, it's actually ahead of many states to the "north" of it.
But VA has always been way ahead of the "South."
BDB|11.14.08 @ 8:56PM|#
Would you rather live in Atlanta, or Wilkes-Barre?
|11.14.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Utah is a special case.
Nutty religion out there.
|11.14.08 @ 9:00PM|#
I'd rather live in MD where I do, where we recently approved a pro-gambling referendum.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Gambling is illegal in VA. Unless, of course, it has to do with the lottery or horses.
Even Bob Goodlatte, an anti-gambling extremist, makes exceptions for horses. No online betting on poker, but horses are a-ok!
|11.14.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Sadly "libertarian" economics can too easy be equated with opportunistic crony capitalism, and with more than a little justification. Until libertarians are will to invest some political capital, and loose a few corporate donations, by aggressively attacking the corrupt and exploitive aspects of business and corporatism, the general public is justified in their suspicion of "libertarian economics."
Hogan|11.14.08 @ 9:13PM|#
Southern man don't need CED around anyhow.
SIV|11.14.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Doesn't dissing the South get old for you guys?
Georgia had the largest LP party election vote total of all time this year:)
In the Senate race the LP candidate forced our incumbent RINO into a runoff.
There is nothing wrong with being "socially conservative" as long as you don't wish to impose your views on others by force. What socially conservative policies has Governor Palin imposed on her fellow Alaskans?
Kolohe|11.14.08 @ 10:07PM|#
MNG/CED-
The ghost of Jerimiah Dixon is asking me "which side of the line did I put Maryland?"
|11.14.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Shit, Alaska is not close to the Talibanocracy of Georgia, Alabama, etc.
You're MNG, aren't you?
|11.14.08 @ 10:48PM|#
I ask because, out of the people who comment here often, he/she/it expresses the most bigotry and hatred toward the "south," which to him appears to be some sort of trashy bucolic nightmare of incestuous orgies and the burning alive of dark-skinned people.
Never mind, I suppose, that southern people have been among the most gracious, intelligent, and kind people I've ever known in my life, I suppose. Did you watch Deliverance at a young age and ingest it whole, uncritically?
|11.14.08 @ 10:49PM|#
I'll throw in another "I suppose" because I have apparently fucking forgotten that preview is my friend.
|11.14.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Oh, and if you are MNG, do you really wonder why I refuse to take you seriously? A PhD isn't an insurance policy against being a hateful dumbass.
|11.14.08 @ 11:10PM|#
If I understand him right, Ray Kurzweil
(kurzweilAI.net) thinks the exponential application of nano to solar will solve
most energy problems within 10 years.If that
happens, carbon caps, carbon trading and all that will have been a huge waste.So much for
"green reform."
|11.14.08 @ 11:12PM|#
I don't understand what David Brooks, et al want from the Republican party. Why don't they just become Democrats?
Mad Max|11.14.08 @ 11:28PM|#
The Deep South should just have its own party, if they don't want to think of new nomenclature they could just somewhat accurately call it the 'Nazi-Taliban Party*'"
Followed by an explanatory footnote: "* Racists and fundies"
Perhaps New York could have two Corrupt Whoremongering Statist Parties. Wait . . .
DannyK|11.15.08 @ 12:18AM|#
Ramesh Ponnuru, the theo-con, just posted a link to this Reason article, with the sarcastic comment:
"That sort of Republican party would massively increase its support among voters named Anthony Randazzo, but I fear that accomplishment is unlikely to do much to help the party "return to power."
Not a good sign when your enemies respond with scorn instead of anger.
Craig|11.15.08 @ 2:51AM|#
Sounds good, except for the part about falling for the "global climate change" BS.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:38AM|#
Seth,
Until libertarians are will to invest some political capital, and loose a few corporate donations, by aggressively attacking the corrupt and exploitive aspects of business and corporatism, the general public is justified in their suspicion of "libertarian economics."
You're right, of course. But you're messing with the religion. We can't start drinking cherry kool aid *now*, it's *always* been grape or nothing.
BruceM|11.15.08 @ 4:41AM|#
As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections. Somehow, over the past 20 years the radical, irrational, faith-based christofascists have hijacked the GOP with razorblades and have steered it on a suicide course towards Washington.
Bring back the party of Barry Goldwater. Tell Pat Robertson, Jay Sekulow, and all the evangelical faith-based whackjob wingnuts to go fuck themselves. Just like Barry Goldwater did. They've destroyed the GOP, bastardized it - taken it from the party of small government to the party of spreading Christianity and enforcing Christian values upon all Americans.
As these creepy assholes masturbate to visions of little boys praying in school, gays locked up behind bars, ten commandments festooned on every wall, and women forced by law to remain pregnant to give birth to another Christian Soldier, they fail to realize that the majority of the country finds their masturbatory dreams annoying and repulsive. Now that they've proven over 8 years that they cannot govern and they are NOT the party of small government, but rather lame, do as I say theocracy, they fail to offer even the ILLUSION of those principles to even the most uninformed electorate.
Either the religion is excised from the Republican party, or the Republican party is excised from mainstream American politics.
And I say this as a former Republican. Today's GOP is unrecognizeable. Barry Goldwater must be rolling in his grave.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:42AM|#
Not a good sign when your enemies respond with scorn instead of anger.
Hey, the scorn is just a constant. The anger won't come with it until they loose an election.
Assuming the Republicans can win another election. But then, that would be assuming the Democrats don't over do it too.
If the Republicans wanted to go libertarian, they wouldn't already be where they are now.
Oh sorry, that was so obvious we shouldn't have wasted time pointing it out.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.15.08 @ 4:49AM|#
As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections.
I theenk you are in for a reeeeelly beeg surprise, omeego. Because most Americans, they are believers.
If Bush had actually been what he said he was in 2000, the Republicans would have been quite happy with him. But Bush always came across as kind of wishy-washy, and he was worse than that once elected.
McCain wasn't even in the Republican ball park, he got the nomination only because the competition was worse and the media liked him.
I bet that another Reagan could still win the White House.
PS to Republicans: Palin isn't even orbiting a moon that's anywhere near the same planet that Reagan came from.
BruceM|11.15.08 @ 5:04AM|#
Ebeneezer, most Americans will check the "Christian" box asking what religion they are, and to be sure the vast majority of Americans are non-freethinking sheep infected with the virus of religion. But the democrats are Christians too, Obama says "god bless America" at the end of his speeches, also. The republican party offers nothing but jack-off material to those people who put their religion before the well-being of themselves and their country. Yes that is a sizeable chunk of the American population but not enough to win presidential elections, especially in contest with an opponent that also embraces religion.
My point is the number of people who will vote themselves into bankruptcy just to prevent gay people from getting married is significant, to be sure, but not significant enough. And the Republican party offers NOTHING else. It used to offer small gov't, lower taxes, less government intrusion in our lives, and fiscal responsibility - or at least the illusion thereof. Now it offers nothing but knuckle-dragging ape-men throwing their own feces at textbooks that teach evolution, and other such masturbation fantasies for Evangelical christofascists. That's it. And while Christianity is certainly mainstream, a political party that's only purpose is to provide jackoff material for Christians is completely and utterly fringe.
AntiFed|11.15.08 @ 5:06AM|#
Good... except for the bit about open-borders. You can't have such a policy when your neighbouring country has tens of millions of Third World people of whom 60% want to live in our land. The US would be flooded (like it alrady is) and would quickly become unrecognizable and spiral to the depths of Mexico or Venezuela. No thanks. We can have liberty without becoming part of Greater Mexico.
|11.15.08 @ 9:15AM|#
Sorry to upset you Jim Bob, but while, as I noted, the Deep South has many good aspects, it's politically a theocracy/racist area. Don't hate me because I call it as I see it, hate the Southerners that make the Southern political scene so out of step with the rest of the nation. The Southern face of the GOP is one that is a losing one for them. Did you know that there is now not one GOP congressperson fron New England?
Yes I'm MNG. I lost a bet with BDB and joe and have to post as Crow Eating Dumbass for the rest of the month.
|11.15.08 @ 9:21AM|#
In first grade I moved from Tennessee to Connecticut. I learned that northerners are taught to look down on southerners at a very young age. It must be some sort of inferiority complex, probably based on our shooting skills, or our pretty ladies. Southerners are more likely to want to be left alone, which fits them in with libertarians better than urban and northern nanny state lovers. Not all southerners are religious zealots. The GOP would be foolish to abandon the south, especially considering that we'll be taking congressional seats from the rotting north after 2010.
Some Guy|11.15.08 @ 9:23AM|#
The GOP will regain power when Obama runs the country into the ground. They'll use that power to redistribute the wealth to to their buddies on Wall Street and start a few wars. Then the Dems will be back in power. This will repeat until the country collapses.
|11.15.08 @ 9:24AM|#
"Perhaps New York could have two Corrupt Whoremongering Statist Parties."
Oh there is plenty of corruption and statism in the Deep South too my friend! As well as theocracy. I'm not excusing the problems in the Northern political scene by any means.
"There is nothing wrong with being "socially conservative" as long as you don't wish to impose your views on others by force."
Which they do in the Deep South. Regularly. Georgia was the state that locked that poor kid up, and wanted to keep him there forever, for having oral sex with a girl about his age. The South opposes drug legalization, porn and gambling with a vengance unmatched in other areas of the US (yes BDB I grant Utah can give them a run for their money, but they are a theocracy out there too)
Conservative=theocrat I'm afraid.
|11.15.08 @ 9:27AM|#
The North can be nanny state, yes (of course so can the South). But they lack the funie nonsense. But I'd rather live in Sweden than Saudia Arabia any day.
"As long as the Republican party caters to Evangelical Christians, it will have a loud, vocal base but it will never be mainstream and it will never again win presidential elections."
And where do these evangelicals dominate? What region of the nation produces them in such large, influential numbers? Hmmm...
shrike|11.15.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Very eloquent, BruceM.
What is more troubling for the GOP is that the rest of the country is letting this stark truth seep into its mass consciousness - so that it will take years of undoing to negate.
The great irony is that just four years ago - that wretched fucking hick from my home state of Georgia, (Zell Miller) was pushing his book, 'A National Party No More', pertaining to how his party had succumbed to provincialism. Of course, he unknowingly wrote it as a Republican.
|11.15.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Bruce
To his credit, McCain doesn't really give a shit one way or the other on gay marriage and Palin stated she would allow the states to decide and uphold there right to do so no matter the outcome. I saw that as a step forward from the Bush mentality.
Palin needs to keep hammering the fact that just because she believes one way doesn't mean she will thwart the law. She will please the church and the log cabin. I was done with Bush the moment he allowed Ashcroft to supersede states rights on medical marijuana and euthanasia.
I think the best we can hope for from the republicans is Ron Paul light in Sarah Palin backed up by a centrist 2nd in command.
Many republicans don't really care if gov't overall spends less, they just like the lingo, and they want money taken out of social programs, because for one they don't work, but more importantly for many republicans they are seen as a breading ground for liberals.
As Libertarians I think you have to take your power grabs where they are available which is seldom in public office. Vouchers, Medical Marijuana, deregulating the health care system, etc… are issues we can win ground on. Libertarian transformation will be won one issue at a time. The whole message is to much for the mainstream. Small bites.
shrike|11.15.08 @ 10:37AM|#
To his credit, McCain doesn't really give a shit one way or the other on gay marriage and Palin stated she would allow the states to decide and uphold there right to do so no matter the outcome. I saw that as a step forward from the Bush mentality.
You cherry-picked his positions. Many voters know what kind of reactionary dog-whistle it is to evoke the call for "originalist" judges.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:41AM|#
"Oh there is plenty of corruption and statism in the Deep South too my friend! As well as theocracy. I'm not excusing the problems in the Northern political scene by any means."
Nor was I excusing Deep South corruption. The question is whether the South is so *uniquely* evil that the GOP should openly admit to abandoning it.
So let us take your corruption examples to see how unique they are:
"Georgia was the state that locked that poor kid up, and wanted to keep him there forever, for having oral sex with a girl about his age. The South opposes drug legalization, porn and gambling with a vengance unmatched in other areas of the US (yes BDB I grant Utah can give them a run for their money, but they are a theocracy out there too)"
You may have heard of New York's Rockefeller drug laws. And, of course, when the Supreme Court heard that case about life sentences for drug crimes, that case came from . . . wait for it - Michigan. Michigan is, of course, the stoners' paradise which just legallized medical MJ, and good for them, but the life-imprisonment case was for "hard" drugs.
The oral-sex charge in GA started as a rape charge. To be sure, the sentence is shocking, but it didn't come from cops doing random "oral sex sweeps." This is about the prosecutor and the judge disliking the jury's acquittal on the rape charge, and compensating by an excessive sentence for the oral sex. An argument for respecting the right to trial by jury - and why not ask a New Yorker how much they respect the right to jury trials for Americans charged with "war crimes" in international courts, or the right to jury-trial of those accused by administrative agencies.
And haven't I heard something recently about racism in the Empire State? Ah, here it is:
"In front of a courtroom at times crowded with family members of seven teens accused in a fatal hate-crime stabbing, a Suffolk prosecutor Monday said the group was "determined" to find a victim of Hispanic descent.
"'In their own words, "Let's go find some Mexicans to ---- up,"' said Assistant District Attorney Nancy Clifford at First District Court in Central Islip."
(Of course, the defendants may all be innocent)
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:42AM|#
"porn and gambling"
Well, there was a famous prosecutor in New York who wanted to crack down on prostitution. Whatever happened to him, anyway?
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 10:53AM|#
No racial problems in NY, move along:
In November 1995 Hector Gonzalez was at a New York nightclub when gang members attacked and killed a man they thought had slighted them. Mr. Gonzalez helped two people hurt during the attack, and spots of their blood on his pants was characterized by prosecutors as coming from the victim. Wrongly prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for more than six years as a murderer, DNA tests of the blood proved Hector Gonzalez is a Good Samaritan and not a killer.
Oh, that was a cheap shot! As is this:
In 1992 Shih-Wei Su was convicted of attempting to murder a gang member in New York City. . . . on July 11, 2003 the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Su's habeas petition. The prosecution dismissed the attempted murder charge and Su was released after 12 years of wrongful imprisonment. (paragraph break) In February 2006 Su filed a federal civil rights lawsuit demanding $25 million in damages from the City of New York, for the prosecutor's action of "knowingly presenting perjured testimony and deceiving a jury into wrongfully convicting plaintiff of attempted murder." On October 16, 2008 Su and NYC settled the suit for $3.5 million.
Isn't it too bad these cases didn't happen in the Deep South? Wrongly-convicted defendants who just happened to be non-WASPS? these cases would have been *so* useful in demonstrating Southern racism.
|11.15.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Mad Max
Southern, Western and Northern states both have draconian drug laws, but the North and West also legalize medical mj and decriminalize mj, both of which are unthinkable in the theocratic South.
Prostitution and porn are different things, the former illegal everywhere but the latter castigated more in Southern theocratic states.
I do appreciate you didn't even try on the gambling thing, glad to know bloggers have some limits...
Somehow I doubt you're disturbed by the South's theocratic tendencies at all.
"This is about the prosecutor and the judge disliking the jury's acquittal on the rape charge, and compensating by an excessive sentence for the oral sex."
Oh bullshit, this is about the strict idiotic statute Georgia had in place that the kid was sentenced under.
"And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and -- willing or not -- could not consent legally that night.
Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life."
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/legalCenter/Story?id=1693362&page=2
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:12AM|#
"I do appreciate you didn't even try on the gambling thing, glad to know bloggers have some limits..."
You're quite right, I would lose all credibility if denied the obvious fact of the anti-gambling fever in Deep South states like Louisiana.
The Georgia "Child abuse" law was stupid and oppressive because of the excessive sentences authorized. The court could have imposed a more lenient sentence, but went for the strict sentence because of the belief that rapists should walk because of some technicality like the jury not believing they're rapists.
If only this guy had been prosecuted in the Deep South
. . . Matthew Bandy, an Arizona teenager who faced a possible sentence of 90 years in prison because of nine images on his computer that the government identified as child pornography. Police, who (naturally) seized the computer during a ridiculously excessive military-style raid, apparently obtained a warrant based on Bandy's alleged visit to a website that included child porn. But that site was not the source of the images on his computer, and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas could not prove the pictures had been deliberately downloaded (as opposed to planted by malicious software), let alone that Bandy had downloaded them. After putting the kid through hell for two years, Thomas tried to save face by charging him with a trumped-up felony that consisted of showing another boy a copy of Playboy. Bandy pleaded guilty to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. To add insult to injury, Thomas tried to force Bandy, who had admitted to nothing but looking at legal pornography, to register as a sex offender.
|11.15.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Max
Incidents of racism can be found and linked to from every area of the U.S.
But structural conditions can be very indicative. The South had slavery far longer and more extensively than any other region. The South had peonage laws in which largely black prisoners were "rented" out to companies and put on chain gangs far more extensively and longer than any other region. The South enacted felon disenfranchisement laws, many of them in direct and quite blatant response to black enfranchisement (and many targeted to offenses which had higher black offending rates), and the South currently still disenfranchises more blacks than any other region more extensively. The South currently has a disporportionate number of hate/racist groups active in comparison to other regions.
|11.15.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Max
Just as you've confused porn and prostitution you've confused porn and child porn. Every state is draconian on the latter, but the former is much more accepted in the Non-Southern states.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:16AM|#
"Somehow I doubt you're disturbed by the South's theocratic tendencies at all."
I said the South wasn't *uniquely* evil.
If you could provide a definition of theocracy, showing how the South meets it and other states don't, and how this theocracy is uniquely evil - evil in a way that non-Southern, non-theocratic state are not evil - then that might be helpful.
|11.15.08 @ 11:21AM|#
% White vote for Obama
Alabama-10
Georgia-23
South Carolina-26
Louisiana-14
Mississippi-11
Nation-43
Hmmm...Indicative of something?
|11.15.08 @ 11:25AM|#
I'll get in on this bash the south discussion. I've lived in the south (Virginia and Mississippi), the west coast (San Diego and Puget Sound), the Great Lakes (Detroit, it's inner ring 'burbs, ond Waukegan Illinois), and the East (southern Jersey). I don't know what region you would place the Maryland eastern shore in (Salisbury), but I've lived there also.
Lots of fucked up to go around there, but the Maryland eastern shore and Mississippi gulf coast are tied for #1 in my personal fuckedupedness ranking system. Nonetheless, I have some good things to say about both of them.
Make of that what you will.
|11.15.08 @ 11:25AM|#
A theocracy is where policy has a religious base, such as the religious opposition to gambling, abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drug use that is strongest in the South (I could throw in creationism as an example, but it does not impinge on liberty like these). It is evil in that it is restrictive of actions that do not violate Mills harm doctrine and are restrictions on liberty.
Would you like to argue that opposition to the above list is not strongest in the South and that said opposition does not get significant support from religious groups for religious reasons?
I argue that the South is out of step for two reasons, both of them bad: the strength of conservative Christians in that area (theocracy) and racism.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:26AM|#
"Just as you've confused porn and prostitution you've confused porn and child porn"
You seem to have confused Playboy with child porn. That's what the guy pleaded guilty to - showing a Playboy to another kid. It's for *that* he was threatened with sex-offender registration.
If Georgia did *that,* would you try to minimize it?
"The South enacted felon disenfranchisement laws, many of them in direct and quite blatant response to black enfranchisement (and many targeted to offenses which had higher black offending rates), and the South currently still disenfranchises more blacks than any other region more extensively."
Here there's a germ of truth, but not nearly enough to make the point you want. Modern felon-disenfranchisement laws - that is to say, laws taking the vote away from convicted felons of all types - were not motivated by a desire to target black people. When a state actually wanted to target black people as such, rather than target criminals as such, it was very selective, *refusing to disenfranchise all felons because so many felons were white.*
Mississippi, in 1898, distinguished between "black" crimes like petty theft and the like and singled out these criminals for disenfranchisement. At the same time, Mississippi allowed convicted rapists and murderers to vote, because rape, and murder and burglary considered "white" crimes. The state constitution was later amended to disenfranchise murderers, burglars and rapists, and a federal appeals court found that this removed the discriminatory features of the law. In other words, disenfranchising *all* felons is the very reverse of racial discrimination.
Florida has been cited for its "racist" felony disenfranchisement laws, but these laws date back to 1845, when only white males could vote. In other words, there were no black voters to disenfranchise - every single felon disenfranchised was white. Again, the federal courts threw this "racism" claim out of court.
|11.15.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Here is a map of the now unconstitutional liberty restricting sodomy laws by state. Notice a pattern?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg
|11.15.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Brother, you picked the wrong topic because I just finished reading the top book on this topic, Uggen and Manza's locked out. They found that the racial origins of the laws, especially in the South and including many current statutes, were unmistakable.
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/FD_summary.htm
|11.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#
The Arizona law is bad, the Georgia one is worse. I'm claiming comparative badness here.
|11.15.08 @ 11:40AM|#
List of states that have legalized medical marijuana, notice not a Southern state in there at all:
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=881
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#
"religious opposition to gambling, abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drug use that is strongest in the South . . . It is evil in that it is restrictive of actions that do not violate Mills harm doctrine and are restrictions on liberty."
I am not aware that John Stuart Mill held the position that abortion was consistent with his harm doctrine, because it injures someone other than the perpetrator.
"gambling"
Did you know that Mississippi has more legalized commercial casinos than New Jersey? As does Louisiana. Those fundamentalist, theocratic New Jerseyites! No wonder they call the place New Jesus!
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"drug use"
Michigan passed a law requiring life sentences for a first conviction of possessing 650 grams of cocaine. The Supreme Court upheld the law, the Southern Justice (Marshall) dissented.
|11.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Max
Casinos are legal in areas of all three states, that more are built and running in the two Southern States than the one northern one is not indicative of much.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:53AM|#
I read an early version of Uggen and Manza's study, which listed Florida as having come up with felony disenfranchsement during Reconstruction in order to disenfranchise black people. I contacted one of the authors to point out that Florida actually started disenfranchising felons in 1845 - when all the felons disenfranchised were white. The guy wrote back to me to basically shrug and say, sure.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
"Casinos are legal in areas of all three states, that more are built and running in the two Southern States than the one northern one is not indicative of much."
It indicates that some states are more comfotable with legalized gambling others.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
than others
|11.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Poll indicating support for whether consensual adult homosexuality illegal, notice the Southern number!
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2992007.pdf
Lefiti|11.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"Financial markets are inherently unstable and there are social needs that cannot be met by giving market forces free rein. Unfortunately these defects are not recognized. Instead there is a widespread belief that markets are self-correcting and a global economy can flourish without any need for a global society. It is claimed that the common interest is best served by allowing everyone to look out for his or her own interests and that attempts to protect the common interest by collective decision making distort the market mechanism. This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism.
It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable.
... it was only when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power around 1980 that market fundamentalism became the dominant ideology. It is market fundamentalism that has put financial capital into the driver's seat."
--George Soros
BDB|11.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#
CED--
Please compare the % of the white vote to the % Kerry got to be fair.
I think you will find the white vote went up for Democrats (following the nationwide trend) in all areas but Appalachia, Louisiana (Katrina diaspora), Arizona, and Alasaka.
Also, there is a huge difference between VA, NC, GA, and FL on one hand and MS, AL, TN, KY etc on the other.
BDB|11.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Don't bother arguing abortion with Mad Max. He is a Catholic fundie.
|11.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#
"It indicates that some states are more comfotable with legalized gambling others."
That's crazy. It could indicate all kinds of other things. Do you really mean that?
BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:00PM|#
I'd still like to know if CED would rather live in Atlanta or Wilkes-Barre.
|11.15.08 @ 12:02PM|#
"Also, there is a huge difference between VA, NC, GA, and FL on one hand and MS, AL, TN, KY etc on the other."
Agreed, I indicated that above by referring to the "Deep South." But GA is in the Deep South. VA, NC and FL are hardly part of the "South" anymore. Hell, VA has economic, political and social indicators comparable to New England.
"Don't bother arguing abortion with Mad Max. He is a Catholic fundie."
Yeah, that's why I said upthread that it's ironic he's arguing the South is not more theocratic since he'd probably have little problem with a little theocracy.
Max, you do realize that without the protection of seperation of church and state we could go back to those good ol' anti-Catholic laws?
BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Georgia is coastal south, not deep south. It is closer to NC than MS.
|11.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#
"Most American Catholics are aware that the spirit of New England's North American settlements was hostile to Catholicism. But few are aware of the vigor and persistence with which that spirit was cultivated throughout the entire colonial period. Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.
Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics."
BDB|11.15.08 @ 12:08PM|#
I bet the most tolerant colony for Catholics was probably Pennsylvania.
|11.15.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Louisiana against gambling, are you nuts? Casinos everywhere, not just on reservations. The horse racing business is huge down here, and they allow me to bet on the races from the comfort of my home. Until recently cock fighting was a gambling mecca. As for Mississippi, ask Naga Sadow about that. Alabama, dog racing and now slots at the tracks. Georgia is about the only deep south state that has a problem with gambling.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Here's the 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's ban on felon voting, and pointing out that such a ban was in force since 1845, when all the disenfranchised felons were white.
The article in which the authors Mazen and Uggen (with a coauthor) ignored the evidence and traced Florida's ban back to the 1868 Reconstruction constitution is this one:
Ballot Manipulation and the "Menace of Negro Domination": Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-20021
Angela Behrens, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza, American Journal of Sociology, November 2003, 559-605.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:15PM|#
It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees.
So Maryland reverted to the mean and became less tolerant of Catholics as time went on? In other words, it started becoming like other states (North and South)? What does that show - especially since you're criticizing only the Deep South?
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:18PM|#
The beef against the Catholic Church up through 1865 was that it supposedly had too comfortable a relationship with the South.
Of course, Louisiana was a Protestant theocracy which had never even *heard* of Catholics!
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 12:23PM|#
"Max, you do realize that without the protection of seperation of church and state we could go back to those good ol' anti-Catholic laws?"
"Separation of Church and State" was an anti-Catholic slogan invoked by the supporters of the 19th-century Blaine Amendment (no govt aid to parochial schools), and, oh, yes, also invoked by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.
Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, the leading separationist organization, was founded in the 1940s as an anti-Catholic organization, calling itself Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State.
|11.15.08 @ 12:31PM|#
In their book Manza/Uggen report statistical evidence showing disenfranchisement laws coming in "waves", one wave being in response to the increased franchise during the Age of Jacksonian Democracy and one coinciding with Reconstruction and centered in the South. Their finding did not rest on Florida's data.
"The beef against the Catholic Church up through 1865 was that it supposedly had too comfortable a relationship with the South."
What are you talking about? That's crazy. The beef originated with the freaking Reformation. Englishmen didn't shed their history when they came over. They hated Catholics when there was no South.
Protestants also were concerned that Catholics could not be democratic citizens because they were authoritarian and that the Pope was the anti-Christ (I was actually taught this in a large Southern Baptist Church as a child). They also noticed that heavily Catholic immigrant groups were growing in numbers and simple ethnocentrism took over.
What a crazy statement!
|11.15.08 @ 12:32PM|#
"It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees."
Excellent!
|11.15.08 @ 12:33PM|#
And Max, that would be the OPPOSITE of a theocracy, so the fact it's not in the south bolsters my overall point...
economist|11.15.08 @ 12:55PM|#
"It is the state of California, not some Deep South state, which wants to force Catholic organizations to provide birth-control to their employees."
Excellent!"
Some of us here are against forcing private employers to provide specific drugs in their health plans. Even though I disagree with the Catholics' contraception obsession, I figure if a Catholic employer doesn't want to provide contraceptives, he shouldn't be forced to.
economist|11.15.08 @ 12:57PM|#
I believe in the right of people to hold their own opinions and associate (or refuse to associate) with others based on those opinions, even if I personally think they're giant douches.
economist|11.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#
"Protestants also were concerned that Catholics could not be democratic citizens because they were authoritarian and that the Pope was the anti-Christ (I was actually taught this in a large Southern Baptist Church as a child). "
So I see that you have some first-hand experience with insane fundamentalists. And while it's true that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that democracy is the only legitimate form of government (or that all democracies are legit), that in itself doesn't make them authoritarians. I think something similar in that vein, myself, although for different reasons.
Mad Max|11.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#
"What are you talking about? That's crazy. The beef originated with the freaking Reformation."
There were a lot of beefs. The alleged coziness with the South was was one of them.
Take a look at this