Letters to the Editor
maniondl
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Semantics, Ideology, Foreign and Domestic Policy, and the Press
[Read the article: The John McCain "centrism" fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]" 'Political ideology doesn't function like mathematics, where two numbers situated on opposite extreme poles can be averaged together to produce a nice, comfortable number in the middle. That isn't how political ideology works. A warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues isn't a 'moderate' or a 'centrist.' He's just a warmonger with authoritarian impulses and liberal positions on social issues.' Applying that fallacy to McCain is even more irrational than it was to Giuliani, because the pro-life McCain is a far more conventional conservative on social issues."
This post and these comments are a fascinating discussion, I think, on language, cultural movements, political positioning, and press coverage. The view presented in most media analysis is "right, left, and center" or "conservative, liberal, and moderate," terms that many of us here and Glenn have pointed out don't actually apply to a reasoned discussion of foreign policy (particularly McCain's). Interventionist, unilateral, etc. are more appropriate, not to mention that the situation in Iraq is a mess that has been superceded by tactical discussions (about 4-5 years too late) and anti-Islamic ideology rather than actual policy decisions.
Do we need a primer for reporters and media consumers? On CNN's site we've been educated about the delegate selection process and can see each state and each county reporting results. Those processes are complicated, but necessity has helped educate many. Could the same be done for McCain and his eventual opponent? Give them a spectrum/graph for each issue, with historical examples and links to more detailed explainations (and the candidates' position papers)? Bashing the press is unfortunately quite easy for me; coming up with better ideas that they might implement is difficult.
If educating the public about the truth of these matters is too much work, then perhaps the media can be called on to choose their words more carefully, and challenge their own assumptions about who is moderate and how (I can dream, right?) Just because McCain isn't as obviously offensive as Rick man-on-dog Santorum in his social rhetoric doesn't mean the maverick can't hold some extreme positions on foreign policy and judicial philosophy. Just because reporters would dread an interview with Ralph Reed and relish a chat with McSame, doesn't mean that McSame's political positions are as palatable and noble as one might wish because they are delivered wittily by the cool, heroic POW who was unfairly treated by Bush in the 2000 SC primary.
As a side-note, the moderate McCain myth is going to be tough to shatter, especially with Bill Clinton praising him as a moderate. McCain is in reality pro-invasion, pro-life, pro teaching intelligent design, anti- marriage equality, anti-gun control of all kinds, and is pro-Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia Supreme Court justices. Arizona was the last state to recognize the federal MLK holiday because McCain didn't think MLK deserved that recognition (ironically, he brought up MLK's womanizing--pot calling kettle black much?)
-
Pleeeease.....
[Read the article: "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, can you be editor of Salon? Please?
May your book hit the bestseller lists. May it be read and understood by those you respect.
-
Glenn's Point about International Law, plus a Q for Legal/Political Experts about the Federalist Society
[Read the article: John Yoo's war crimes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find myself coming back to Glenn's point The political reality is that high government officials in the U.S. are never going to be held accountable for war crimes. In practice, "international law" exists as a justifying instrument for powerful countries to impose their will on those which are less powerful, and war crimes tribunals are almost always a form of victor's justice. I had not considered that perspective before and find it difficult to argue. I have been hoping for a fair judgment day of sorts for this administration and its players in some sort of international court. But you're right, it's all about the power, isn't it? That's why the administration scapegoats despite England et al when the more elite, more responsible parties will (it seems) go unpunished.
Despite my suddenly less rosy vision of international law, I found this article in the International Herald Tribune fascinating for a counter-interpretation of constitutional powers (see link in sig line). I especially liked the author's point that in the 200+ years of the SC, there have been no verdicts against Congress for limiting executive privilege. There you go, Congress. Do something! That's what Congress and the constitution are there for in the first place, right? To help us create and abide by just laws for the common good (as opposed to performing acts of violence on the text to justify political demagoguery)? What's the point of an unenforceable constitution?
Legal/political experts: please forgive my ignorance on this admittedly off-topic issue, but is the ACLU the only bill-of-rights-protecting antidote to the Federalist Society, an organization that seems to spawn, legitimize, and nurture right-wing legal activism/ideology and marry its offspring to extreme right-wing political power brokers and agenda-setters? It seems like every legal mind justifying torture (Thomas, Scalia, Yoo--perhaps Roberts will show this as well) had a stint at the Federalist Society. Shortly thereafter, whammo: immediate power and influence in right-wing administrations.
@ scareduck: good luck revoking tenure! I hope you can. Elite institutions hate/can't admit to error. Ever. They protect their own club members, however wrong that person may be, and however much they might personally detest the man and the sinister turns of his legal mind. Though academic freedom should be protected, the downside is that tenure is practically irrevocable.
PS: I'm loving all of the links/background in Glenn's article and from David Tarrell, bystander, and John PM (sorry if I missed anyone else; it's tough for me to keep up with the traffic). Thanks for enriching my morning.