Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Swamp Zombie
So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" [...]
This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending.
Vice President Dick Cheney, in January 2002:
[I]n 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act. We saw it in the Budget Anti-Impoundment Act. [...]
And one of the things that I feel an obligation, and I know the president does too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors. We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.
Definition of "aggrandize" here.
Cheney brags 10 days ago about responding to Sept. 11 by "restor[ing] the legitimate authority of presidency" here. Money quote:
"At the end of the Nixon administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy," he said. "There have been a number of limitations that have been imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate."
|12.30.05 @ 1:08PM|#
Yes, now that we've given Congress unfettered power, it's unfair to limit the president's authority. Free cookies for everybody---yeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
|12.30.05 @ 1:08PM|#
Hmm.
Two questions:
1) What political force shares these ideas about the appropriate
division of power in the federal government? Are they Republican
ideas? Conservative? John Birch? Constitutionalist?
2) Where can I find the best defense of these ideas? Is there a
paper somewhere?
|12.30.05 @ 1:10PM|#
For a moment there, when he was attacking the selection of
Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, William Kristol was not a
hack.
But basically he's a hack.
|12.30.05 @ 1:18PM|#
"At the end of the Nixon administration, you had the nadir
of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy," he
said. "There have been a number of limitations that have been
imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate."
Interesting that he would use the word "legitimacy" there. That
kind of legitimacy seems a function of two things, competence and
public perceptions. If public perceptions are such that the
President's authority is limited, well that's the way it's supposed
to work. ...and if competence is the problem, with Watergate being
a great example, well don't blame that on us!
Poor, poor Dicky poo! ...The President's authority has to contend
with legitimacy! Poor, poor Dicky.
|12.30.05 @ 1:19PM|#
i am confused as to why restoring power that was once in the
executive branch but is now in the hands of congress and the
various buraokracies is such a bad thing...anyway i am not entierly
against this...my real problem is the gain in federal power as a
whole...needless to say the errotion of the executive branch has
perralleled a rise in federal power.
and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the second one at
dictionary.com and refered to personal aggrandizment and the one
Matt is refering to is the first and in regards to the presidancy
as a whole.
checks and balances are a delicate thing...cheney may be wrong and
the power balance is better now then it was but to say that he does
not have a point in that the presidentail power has erroded in a
historical sense is definatly wrong.
|12.30.05 @ 1:23PM|#
Can we launch some kind of meme campaign to steal back the "conservative" from Willie K and his freakshow posse (in the MSM, at least)? Maybe we could all start calling them "poopyservatives" or something...? (Okay, that doesn't roll of the tongue, but you get the idea...)
|12.30.05 @ 1:25PM|#
"but to say that he does not have a point in that the
presidentail power has erroded in a historical sense is definatly
wrong."
It depends on how far back in history you're willing to go.
|12.30.05 @ 1:26PM|#
Can we launch some kind of meme campaign to steal back the
"conservative" from Willie K and his freakshow posse
How about "authoritarians"?
|12.30.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Works for me, Jennifer. Authoritarian bastards! Why, yes, it
rolls trippingly on the tongue.
Zeus knows that "we" elected these people to save the poor
presidency from irrelevance. 'Cause that's the big problem with the
American system, you know.
Authoritarian bastards!
|12.30.05 @ 1:30PM|#
So I guess Kristol had some crack left over from last
time.
Anyone who follows politics at all knows that one of the main goals
of this administration is to increase the power of the office of
the presidency. And he follows politics. So why does he write such
things? If only we could pinpoint the reason...
|12.30.05 @ 1:40PM|#
THIS JUST IN:
WASHINGTON (AP) � The Justice Department has opened an
investigation into the leak of classified information about
President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials
said Friday.
The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity
of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New
York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National
Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
|12.30.05 @ 1:42PM|#
So the Justice Department wants to know who leaked the information about the program, but not whether the program itself is illegal? Hmmm.
|12.30.05 @ 1:45PM|#
Tip - if you are unsure of the spelling of a word and don't have
access to a spell-checker, use Google. A search just the word in
question (or "Define" and the word in question, sometimes) will
offer "Did you mean:" followed by the correct spelling if you gave
an incorrect one. The vocabulary for it is incredibly broad and the
matching is very good. A search for "buraokracies" comes back with
"Did you mean: burocracies", for instance.
You could use a dictionary, of course, but if you're already in a
web browser, hey...
|12.30.05 @ 1:47PM|#
Which I just realized is the wrong
spelling.
Oops. The downside of a dictionary built up by search results.
Ed|12.30.05 @ 1:59PM|#
That's true, Eric. I just Googled Tagtean Lesbos and it
asked me if I really wanted Tagteam Lesbos.
I replied in the affirmative.
jimmy|12.30.05 @ 2:06PM|#
this whole osama-loving website gets the godwin award every time. bush=hitler, bush=hitler, bush=hitler...geez, if i wanna hear that, i can go downtown and listen to the mentally ill "homeless" meth-heads on their stolen bicycles.
dhex|12.30.05 @ 2:12PM|#
i think "welfare/warfare" state works better. just switch it around when you're talking to more lib types so they don't immediately flip out.
|12.30.05 @ 2:16PM|#
I will say, as a statement of fact, that I am amused.
That's not quite a "response", so seems kosher.
|12.30.05 @ 2:28PM|#
"Or, put another way, by those criteria, when's the last time we
didn't have a NaZi (to borrow a pre-existing abbreviation) in the
White House?"
As I noted in the initial post, the thing we can thank the neocons
for is being explicit in it. They are, in reality, no different
from any other group that has been in control since at least the
depression (you know that FDR admired the Soviets, right?) The only
difference is in what their focus was.
Ed|12.30.05 @ 2:52PM|#
I think you would be hard pressed to name any president who felt that he had all the power he needed, thank you.
|12.30.05 @ 2:53PM|#
I've said this before...
I think a lot of people who throw Godwin's Law around have
forgotten what it says. It says that as a thread gets longer, the
probability of someone referring to the Nazis approaches 100%. Some
people have applied a corollary suggesting that when someone refers
to the Nazis, they lose the argument. In my opinion, however, that
corollary has a built in declining return.
There are threads in which comparisons to Nazis may be perfectly
apt. I think a direct and complete comparison of the Bush
Administration to the Nazis probably isn't apt.
...In spite of all the simularities. But I'd love to have that
discussion sometime. In what ways is the Bush Administration
different from the Nazis? In what ways is the Bush Administration
like the Nazis?
|12.30.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Money quote:
Please, Please, PLEASE refrain from using the word money in that
way, Matt. Especially when refering to Richard Cheney.
|12.30.05 @ 3:03PM|#
In what ways is the Bush Administration different from the
Nazis?
Hatred is generally based on religion or nationality, rather than
ethnicity (the Nazi Jew-bashing was racial, not religious, in
nature)
Scapegoats are citizens of other countries rather than our
own
VAST difference in the degree of oppression (though this can always
change)
In what ways is the Bush Administration like the
Nazis?
Use of fear tactics to divert attention from their own
wrongdoing
Stated or implied belief that nobody who disagrees with them can
possibly be right
ignoring previously signed treaties with other countries
Build-up of "us vs. the rest of the world" nationalism
The rescinding of civil liberties in the name of protecting the
nation
"our country is above criticism"
"hooray for the military, don't you dare criticize anything they
are doing"
assumption that sins committed by any member of a certain group
reflect upon all members of the group
treating prisoners in ways which the civilized world considers
abhorrent
tries to keep what's going on in prison camps secret from the
outside world
not allowing Red Cross access to certain prisoners
use of torture in questioning
guilty until proven innocent
|12.30.05 @ 3:07PM|#
We're up against a couple of Catch 22's.
If I were President, I would want more authority, but I wouldn't be
President (assuming I could be), because I don't think the
authority of a leader does anything to cause progress in
society.
And the best way to fight a war on terror is to not have a war on
terror. The terrorists have already won, as I find myself
repeating.
|12.30.05 @ 3:10PM|#
Jennifer,
Hatred is generally based on religion or nationality, rather than
ethnicity (the Nazi Jew-bashing was racial, not religious, in
nature)
Which hatred are you assigning to which regime? Nazi Catholic
bashing WAS religious in nature. Not sure where the Romani(Gypsie)
bashing falls, probably a bit of both.
|12.30.05 @ 3:10PM|#
I agree quasibill.
I imagine some future President sportin' an armband with a swastika
at his inaugural. He's sworn in and immediately starts to spout
anti-Semitic propaganda and screaming for
lebensraum.
Someone like you posts a comment suggesting that the President
bears a striking resemblance to a certain twentieth century
dictator...
...and the rest of the forum points their fingers and screams,
"Godwin's Law, you lose!"
|12.30.05 @ 3:13PM|#
Which hatred are you assigning to which regime? Nazi
Catholic bashing WAS religious in nature
True, but it generally wasn't the Catholics who were being shoved
into the camps. And from what I read, the Nazis eventually backed
down on the Catholics a bit, after a few words with the Vatican.
(Remember too that it was Hitler's pal Mussolini who made the
Vatican a separate city-state in its own right.) The people who
were going to be put into a camp regardless of their behavior were
the ones who had the wrong ancestors--Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and
such. Whereas the current administration, for all the forms of
bigotry it DOES have, generally doesn't seem to care about skin
color or racial background.
|12.30.05 @ 3:15PM|#
I am constantly amazed at how Bush is always saved by his own
enemies. Between the corruption in Congress, the bonehead pick of
Harriet Myers and getting tagged for every lost puppy in Katrina,
Bush was on the verge of having a lost second term. Then out of the
blue, we get the NYT telling us that Bush is (gasp) spying on our
enemies! The President has war making powers and was authorized by
Congress to make war on AlQuada. Those powers do not end at the
border. The idea that the government can listen into two Al Quada
terrorists talking on the phone in Germany as intelligence
gathering but cannot without a warrent if the same two people are
talking in Manhattan is rediculous. Further, what the government is
doing is using a powerful computer algorythum to pick out those
calls which are likely to contain relevent information and
listening in on those. So what?
All of this is a good example of the difference between people who
have responsibility and those who don't and feel free to take pot
shots at those who do. If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone
on this thread will hold Bush responsible. Imagine being in that
position. You can use this technology which greatly increases your
ability to prevent a terrorist attack but in doing so you might
offend the likes of Howard Dean and his minions over at Reason,
people who (thank God) have no responsibility for much of anything
and are free to attack you no matter what you do, or you can not
use the technology and if there is an attack, have to explain why
you didn't use every means at your disposal to prevent it because
you were afraid you might have offended said Deaniacs who are now
of course crucifying you for not defending the country.
The only good news about this is that most people in this country
are smart enough to realize all of this, which is why Bush's poll
numbers are rebounding and the Dems are going down ever since this
story broke. Like I said, Bush must be the luckiest man in the
world in his choice of enemies.
|12.30.05 @ 3:16PM|#
That works. People who object to an implication even the implier admits would be unreasonable to state outright would of course object to an outright statement that was reasonable.
|12.30.05 @ 3:20PM|#
If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread
will hold Bush responsible.
If the attack is perpetrated by people who kept a low profile, used
simple means, and exploited the inherent vulnerabilities of an open
society, I won't fault anybody expect the actual perpetrators,
their knowing accomplices, and their knowing sponsors.
You can hold me to that, although I hope that we don't suffer an
incident that merits such a discussion. But, if we do, you can hold
me to that.
Let's just pray that this remains a hypothetical.
|12.30.05 @ 3:20PM|#
and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the
second one at dictionary.com and refered to
personal aggrandizment and the one Matt is refering to is the
first and in regards to the presidancy as a
whole.
opps should have read:
and i think kristol's use of "aggrandize" was the
third one at dictionary.com and refered to
personal aggrandizment and the one Matt is refering to is the
first and second and in regards to the presidancy
as a whole.
|12.30.05 @ 3:27PM|#
"If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread will
hold Bush responsible."
Oh, and can people refrain from using "9/11" as shorthand for
'terrorist attack'? The events of that day were unique and will
almost certainly never be replicated, even to the greater part.
While other terrorist attacks will most likely occur, their nature
will probably be quite different.
Damn, I'm grumpy today.
|12.30.05 @ 3:29PM|#
Between the invective hurled and people who don't agree him and the threat that we're going to suffer a terrorist attack if we make trouble for the President, I almost didn't notice that John refused to address the actual objections of those who have a problem with warrantless spying by the government.
|12.30.05 @ 3:30PM|#
If there is another 9-11, no doubt everyone on this thread
will hold Bush responsible.
thoreau gave a well reasoned (and well appreciated) response.
...I'd add that it's the President's responsibility to defend the
country from terrorism, and if his actions encouraged another
attack, or if the attack gets through due to Administration
incompetence in policy or in its implementation, I will, indeed,
hold the President responsible.
You can use this technology which greatly increases your
ability to prevent a terrorist attack but in doing so you might
offend the likes of Howard Dean and his minions over at
Reason...
Surely you can conjure some better argument--why insult Reason?
...What does Reason have to do with Howard Dean? You've been around
for a while John, and you know better than that. That's really,
really lame.
|12.30.05 @ 3:36PM|#
The Nazis knew full well not to directly assault the religious
beliefs in mostly Catholic areas. The conflict came when the
Catholic church was reluctant to subjugate to the state, pointing
to their allegiance to the Pope. The Protestant State Church let
themselves be railroaded and went over to Nazism in 1933. There
were a few notable exceptions, Pastor Niemoeller for example, but
they suffered terribly for it. Even the Catholics were effectively
silenced and told to stick with caring for the souls or else.
To compare GWB with the Nazis does little to make him look like a
monster. History doesn't bear it out, not even close.
|12.30.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Can anyone take a shot at my two questions?
1) What political force shares the administration's stated ideas
about the division of power in the federal government? Are they
Republican ideas? Conservative? John Birch?
Constitutionalist?
2) Where can I find the best defense of these ideas? Is there a
paper somewhere?
Or can anyone say something germane?
|12.30.05 @ 3:41PM|#
Larry,
I don't know about actual writings, but in terms of political
breakdowns, stronger vs. weaker chief executive - vis a vis
Congress and the courts - has been a conservative vs. liberal
issue. Line item vetoes, assertions of War Powers, and a minimal
role for Senate consultation on judicial nominees, for example,
have all been put forward by conservatives, and their opposite
argued by liberals.
|12.30.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Or to put it another way: where are the intellectual centers of movements to restore power to the executive branch? Where are the political centers (aside from the incumbents, of course)?
|12.30.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Larry:
1) Neoconservative.
2) Pretty much anything by PNAC, Kristol, Cheney. As this article
states, Cheney has been fairly unapologetic in his belief in an
imperial presidency. And the neocons are all about granting the
president nearly unlimited power so long as he can claim some
connection to war-making or national security. I'm blanking on the
name of the neocons' periodical right now - surely someone else
here can give you the name.
Neil Block|12.30.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Grover Cleveland spent a good portion of his book on the presidential prerogative and its importance in governance... except he was a pre-Progressive Democrat who hated tariffs, taxes, and imperialism, and used his powers to crush any movement to expand the federal government (414 vetoes in his first term!). I guess it's just a matter of who's in office, rather than the stated powers of the office.
|12.30.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Uh, yeah - Weekly Standard.
(The article leads off with a link to their website).
If you look at the list of contributors to the Weekly Standard,
you'll see the names of the people who form the core of the
intellectual support for the neocon agenda. Searching for papers
they have published will answer alot of your questions.
As a brief summary, they are essentially ex-Communists who believe
in unlimited democratic government and perhaps more importantly,
the use of military force to spread it.
|12.30.05 @ 3:54PM|#
The idea that the government can listen into two Al Quada
terrorists talking on the phone in Germany as intelligence
gathering but cannot without a warrent if the same two people are
talking in Manhattan is rediculous.
I would say it's closer to orangiculous.
One difference between the two: one's legal, the other isn't. And
the issue isn't the warrant, exactly, but whether the President
should have the power to spy on American citizens according to his
own whim, with no requirement to even tell anyone or justify the
spying to anyone ever. He claims that power. I say such a power
violates the Constitution.
|12.30.05 @ 3:56PM|#
1) What political force shares the administration's stated
ideas about the division of power in the federal government? Are
they Republican ideas? Conservative? John Birch?
Constitutionalist?
Some more learned person should take a shot, here's my two
cents.
If Republican ideas on the separation of powers are in contrast to
Popular Sovereignty, then, no, I don't think Bush's power grab is a
particularly Republican idea.
Conservative ideas, as I understand them, would limit the power of
the President, although they might give a big exemption under a
State of Emergency.
John Birch comes kinda close, I think. You've got the
anti-internationalism coupled with a clear us versus them
mentality. I'd point to something cohesive by them, but I've looked
through their website on occasion, and, in my opinion, that looked
kinda hard to come by.
It seems to me that none of these apply clearly. It seems to me
that the President is claiming some kind of retroactive State of
Emergency going back to 9/11. ...Anything written about the
President's powers under a State of Emergency would probably
do.
...I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suggest taking a look at Ex parte
Milligan. It's about habeas corpus rather than wire tapping,
but I'm not so sure the same sort of logic doesn't apply.
|12.30.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Neil Block,
The question wasn't about expanding government power, but of the
president's "share" of that power - that is, his authority to act
unchecked by the other branches.
You can have a small government imperial president - Reagan comes
to mind - and you can have a big government, modest president.
Carter, or maybe Clinton, would be examples.
|12.30.05 @ 4:03PM|#
quasibill, which prominent leaders of neo-conservatism are
ex-Communists?
I know there were a couple of old ones, but people like Kristol,
Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Woosley have always been
men of the right. While they may have picked up some strategic
advice from the Bolshies - like Norquist's Lennin poster - that is
not the same thing at all.
Nor do they believe in "unlimited democracy." Though they use the
term a lot to sell their bill of goods, one of the core values of
neo-conservatives is a belief in aristocracy - rule by the
enlightened "best" caste, who should feel free to mislead and
manipulate the public into supporting their initiatives, because
the aristocrats know best, after all.
|12.30.05 @ 4:04PM|#
William Kristol:
So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around
after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?"
Whatever, it's certainly also a case of the aggrandizement of
government power being necessary in order to bring to fruition
William Kristol's and the other neocon's longstanding plans to have
American blood and money spent for what the neocons envision as
being beneficial for the Israeli government.
The neos want to keep troops in Iraq so that they may be used to
pressure or attack Syria and/or Iran.
|12.30.05 @ 4:18PM|#
You can have a small government imperial president - Reagan
comes to mind - and you can have a big government, modest
president. Carter, or maybe Clinton, would be examples.
I think Bush qualifies as a big government imperial president. Does
this mean that soon we'll have a small government modest one?
Something tells me, no. But one can hope.
|12.30.05 @ 10:46PM|#
Joe,
I am sorry but I find your outrage a bit disingenious. I mean you
have all this rage with Bush using the NSA to spy on americans but
your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on americans finantial
records or when state and local government spy on how many people
live in a house,(not to mention when and where and what type of
house one wishes to build) or when it regulates medical records and
keeps precise records of car and driving habits and on and on and
on.
For you it seems like this should be a non-issue.
For me it really comes as no suprise and at least this time the
government has a constitutional arguement. It also doesn't seem
like a partisan issue to me and I have little doubt that dems have
acted just as bad in the past (worse when we have been attacked on
our soil; FDR) and would be perfectly willing to do exactly what
Bush is doing now.
|12.30.05 @ 11:05PM|#
What does Reason have to do with Howard Dean?
joe
:)
sorry that was to fun to resist.
actually i probably am picking on joe to much...especially on this
issue seeing as how my opinion is mostly in the minority of
libertarians and my views on the war are admittadly not libertarian
in origin (leftist in fact).
But I would like to hear a more reasoned libertarian view on
exactly what the executive branch war powers should be. Doesn't
someone have to keep our enemies at bay?
TallDave|12.31.05 @ 12:23AM|#
Hey why didn't we see all this fuss about abusing the executive
power re the warrantless searches of Aldrich Ames and
ECHELON?
Gee, it's almost like there wasn't a front-page NYT story about
those. But how could that have happened?
TallDave|12.31.05 @ 12:29AM|#
joe says: the threat that we're going to suffer a terrorist
attack if we make trouble for the President
See, this is how unhinged the opponents of the NSA wiretaps have
become. They're not just protesting that potential terrorist are
being spied on to prevent them from killing us, they're claiming
that pointing out that what they're advocating may get Americans
killed is a "threat."
This is like claiming a "DANGER: Do Not Enter" sign is not only an
infringment on your right to drive the wrong way on the freeway,
but it's also a threat. This is tinfoil hat land.
|12.31.05 @ 1:40AM|#
Talldave: for what it's worth, some of us who are opposed to the
NSA wiretaps find ourselves opposed because of just how fast and
loose the administration plays around with the "potential" part of
the potential terrorists who they are preventing from killing
us.
Like the part where they were investingating PETA meetings because
someone who had been a member of PETA joined the Animal Liberation
Front.
This is what drives me crazy about the defenders of the
authoritarians (Jennifer, great name!). You invariably pick the
lamest argument against your politicians, and then proceed to shred
it and assume that your stance is defended. Which it is, against
idiots (not that I'm accusing Joe of being such). But on the
serious criticisms, you are silent.
You know, I have yet to hear anyone make the affirmative case about
why it is in our interest to eliminate FISA oversight of NSA phone
intercepts. No one can tell me how eliminating that oversight has
or will save lives. And its funny, how although President Bush's
people apparantly went to Congress and asked if they would expand
the guidelines of FISA and were rejected, how none of the
President's defenders are lambasting the Republican Congress for
having refused to pass a law that would save American lives.
Instead, we get the same old routine: Michael Moore opposes the NSA
intercepts, and Michael Moore is an idiot. Therefore, being opposed
to the NSA intercepts is idiotic. Well, I'm convinced.
|12.31.05 @ 1:52AM|#
For a moment there, when he was attacking the selection of
Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, William Kristol was not a
hack. But basically he's a hack.
That's why I like Reason's Blog: they read the hacks so you don't
have to.
Matt Welch|12.31.05 @ 3:06AM|#
And you just proved Kristol's point.
By pointing out he didn't have one?
Hey why didn't we see all this fuss about abusing the executive
power re the warrantless searches of Aldrich Ames and
ECHELON?
I can't speak for the rest of the fuss-generators, but there is
some overlap, especially among the type of people who contribute to
& read this website, between people who criticized the
expansion of government & executive power under Bush, and the
expansion of government & executive power under Clinton.
|12.31.05 @ 5:49AM|#
Re: Bush = Hitler
An *excellent* book that attempts to define fascism is "The Anatomy
of Fascism " by Robert Paxton. Its basic thesis is that fascism
should be defined based on the practice of fascism
as opposed to the ideology of fascism.
Looking at the history of the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, Mr.
Paxton argues that both men were supported by powerful elites.
These elites supported them, not because they admired
Hitler and Mussolini and their movements, but because they were
deathly afraid of communism. Fascism was seen as the only way to
stop the spread of communism (after the communist coup
in Russia, their fear was understandable). This fear was also why
people were willing to turn a blind eye to brutality and the end
of
rule-of-law.
Note, he uses the term liberalism to mean classical liberalism, and
the term conservatism to mean conservation of the past.
Mr. Paxton also compares and contrasts fascism with other
authoritarian movements.
This is a good book to read before deciding whether Bush =
Hitler.
|12.31.05 @ 7:33AM|#
Joe . . your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on
americans finantial records or when state and local government spy
on how many people live in a house,
Throughout two threads now, joe has been one of the most outspoken
critics of the latter policy. Adjust your reading skills,
joshua.
|12.31.05 @ 1:54PM|#
joshua,
"I am sorry but I find your outrage a bit disingenious. I mean you
have all this rage with Bush using the NSA to spy on americans but
your outrage seems to stop when the IRS spys on americans finantial
records or when state and local government spy on how many people
live in a house,(not to mention when and where and what type of
house one wishes to build) or when it regulates medical records and
keeps precise records of car and driving habits and on and on and
on."
Actually, I denounced the Manassas, VA law in very strong terms on
that thread, though apparently the joe who lives in your head
supports it. I'm also a big supporter of medical privacy.
If the fact that a political position that values personal freedom
- one's mind, heart, soul, body, and speech - over "economic
freedom" - one's stuff and business operations - strikes you as
confusing, then perhaps you need to leave the bubble of linkminded
libertoids, and learn a little more about different political
philosophies.
|12.31.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Rick Barton,
Grover Norquist quite famously has a poster of Lenin hanging in his
office, and reads his books for strategic advice the way other read
Sun Tzu.
"Probe for weaknesses with bayonettes" - that type of thing. He
looks to the early Bolsheviks for pointers on effective political
action. This is probably the most important "movement conservative"
in America, and he thinks it is proper for our politicians to
behave like those in Soviet Russia.
|1.1.06 @ 2:36PM|#
not quite sure of TallDave's point, but:
Prosecutors say official at C.I.A. spied for Russia
Johnston, David. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New
York, N.Y.: Feb 23, 1994. p. A1
Spy suspect betrayed 10 U.S. agents, F.B.I. says
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Feb 24, 1994. p. A1
C.I.A. had hints of a spy years before it zeroed in
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Mar 2, 1994. p. A1
Spy voices shame and defiance before receiving a life
sentence
Johnston, David. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New
York, N.Y.: Apr 29, 1994. p. A1
Spy's spending brought alarm but no action
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Aug 2, 1994. p. A1
C.I.A. STILL IN DARK ON SPY'S DAMAGE
TIM WEINER. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Aug 25, 1995. pg. A.1
Report finds Ames's sabotage more vast than C.I.A. admitted
Weiner, Tim. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Sep 24, 1994. p. A1
and those are just the front page articles
|1.1.06 @ 7:55PM|#
joe,
Ok, I'm hep now. I was aware that the WSJ called him the "Lenin of
the GOP" but not aware of the portrait.
This is probably the most important "movement conservative" in
America, and he thinks it is proper for our politicians to behave
like those in Soviet Russia.
Oh come on, joe. You sound like a politician. That's a ridiculous
stretch, and it's beneath you. Norquist simply thinks that there's
stuff to be gleaned from some of Lenin's perspective on political
conflict.
Kevin Carson|1.2.06 @ 12:35AM|#
Joshua Corning,
Actually, the growth of the imperial presidency in national
security affairs came about at the same time as the growth of big
government domestically. From FDR until the reaction against
Vietnam in the '60s, the Democrats were the party of both foreign
policy activism and an activist presidency. Shit, the
"welfare-warfare" state was CREATED by FDR and Truman.
Until at least the 1950s, "conservatives" were traditionally the
people who feared foreign entanglements and standing armies, and
believed in Congressional supremacy. It was liberals like Art
Schlesinger who believed the President was some kind of progressive
tribune of the people, and Congress was a bunch of moss-backed
obstructionists.
You're imposing an anachronistic Heritage Foundation understanding
of "liberalism" and "conservatism" on the past. Believe it or not,
history didn't start in 1981.
|1.2.06 @ 9:57AM|#
Rick, hanging the man's poster in your office seems to go a
little beyond "gleaning."
But at the heart of it, yes, when Grover Norquist sees a fight
between the two parties here in America, he doesn't look at like
you or I do. He looks at through "Lenin's perspective on political
conflict." And so do most of the "Movement Conservatives."
I think that's pretty damning.
|1.2.06 @ 1:10PM|#
joe,
For me to believe that, especially to the extent that it would be
damning, you'd have to quote Norquist. It's some of the neocons who
have troubling influences from their lefty linage.
Ya know; it wouldn't surprise me at all if Norquist was a reader of
this fine blog. Hey Grover! How about it? Also Grover, let me thank
you for helping in the effort to defeat Ref C here in Colorado.
|1.2.06 @ 5:28PM|#
...not that the poster of Lenin isn't a little weird. So how about it, Grover? Expatiate for us. Or at least, do just a little splainin...
Site 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