Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 808 Editor's Choice: 2
-
on dictatorships
[Read the article: Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a simple argument. If the President is all-powerful, then he can declare a State of Emergency and postpone elections. He can issue an Executive Order that makes himself Commander-in-Chief for life. He can appoint the next “President” and retire to his ranch. He can do whatever he wants that he argues is necessary for the prosecution of the war. He can confiscate all the resources of his opponents, per his July 17 EO, and crush anyone who complains. The Republic is over; the Democracy is over. The Dictator arises. History teaches us it has always been thus.
While I recognize that a strong authoritarian strain runs throughout the current presidency, I do think this is overstatement. Far more likely, the pernicious philosophy and spirit of the current regime will live on in the staffing of a new Republican president (if elected in '08) or in a swell in the ranks of think-tanks and other non-governmental institutions that exist to undermine Democrats in power, if a Democrat is elected president.
The pattern is clear: when neoconservatives fall out of office, they consolidate wealth and non-governmental power for a longer-term institutional countermovement. Their natural allies in the energy industries and military contracting sector provide very effective respites for reconsolidation of morale and organization, grooming of future leadership, and creation of "astroterf" political movements.
-
political effect
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to agree with what Glenn wrote about this matter, and what I tend to take away from this back and forth between Obama and Clinton more than anything else is "so what?"
Obama is correct that this is a "manufactured controversy," and it seems obvious that Clinton's response at the debate was classic misrepresentation of the opponent's views, then dressing-down of the resulting straw man. It's true - Obama did not "promise" to meet with anyone. The substantive positions of each candidate on this matter, in fact, are probably nearly identical - but Clinton saw a tactical political opportunity to score points, took it, and the media is dutifully over-reporting the superficial spat while ignoring the substance, as usual.
But I also can't help but notice another result of this latest media dust storm. It seems to me that, whether by design or default, this whole story is sucking quite a bit of air out of the Republican field. In essence, by presenting two Democratic candidates' positions as the vast contrasts that they are not -- between mulitlateralism and a false pseudo-unilateralism -- the debate presents a mock general-election dichotomy wholly within the Democratic field, thus ignoring the Republican candidates. Notice how relatively absent from the national debate have been the Republican presidential candidates lately. True, this may have a lot to do with the fact that the Democrats had a debate last week and the GOP did not, but I have to think that this latest back-and-forth between Clinton and Obama in fact further pushes the Republican candidates to the sidelines. (This is not to say that I think the faux controversy is healthy to the discourse in any way.)
It may be, possibly, that the traditional media is superimposing onto Clinton its own preference for international pugnaciousness and unilateralism, in a subconscious (or conscious) recognition that the next president will likely be a Democrat in any event, and they at least need to satisfy their appetite for nationalist unilateralism and hyperventalism by convincing themselves that Clinton will in fact be conservative-light on these issues, giving them a toned-down, Democratic surrogate for the Bush figure that they continue to fetishize yet realize has gone out of style and must be replaced in form if not in spirit.
Just some random thoughts.
-
shargash
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is at work here is a profound anti-populism. The people are simply too stupid and out of touch to be trusted with the business of running a democracy.
I think this is quite right - far more than the usual theories that these talking heads and print pundits get direct orders from corporate to take certain points of view, we're talking about a pervasive psychology of elitism and insiderism that in many ways is even more insidious than blatant, hierarchical command. (Of course, I exempt Fox News from this observation, because it's been amply proven that they do in fact impose a certain agenda from the top, in addition to having an ingrained worldview compatible with that message anyway.)
This elitist psychology, in my view, explains these same pundits' self-conscious and constant rhetorical prostration to mythical notions of Middle Merica and all things denim and working class. Much like neoconservatives repeatedly use our military men and women as mere empty props, rather than actually acting or advocating in their true interest, our media elites attempt to disguise their actual sneering condescention for the Ordinary American with meaningless, deceptive paeans in their name.
-
casual_observer
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's funny you called me "Declaw" - a lot of people read it that way. I've taken to liking the mistake. I enjoy the idea of "declawing" my opponents; it's got a sort of aikido/judo vibe to it.
I'm off to find some lovely ingredients to make a lovely dinner.