It's commonplace nowadays (see Paul Krugman today for a for instance) to comment that movement conservatives in the U.S. want to turn back the clock to erase not just the new deal but all the way back to the gilded age, before the Progressive era and Teddy Roosevelt, when, as the odious Grover Norquist put it, "the socialists took over."

Now they seem to be dissatisfied even with that. The even more odious Lindsey Graham wants to turn back the whole 900 years to before King John at Runnymede, to eliminate the requirement that government give those being held in imprisonment the right to challenge the basis for their captivity.

But I almost hope they do try to amend the constitution. It will only show how wretchedly authoritarian and shortsighted they are. Fortunately, it's not that easy to amend the constitution, and I'd give their prospects of success about zero chance.

The Neo-conservative movement, which tries to pass itself off as the "conservative" movement, is plainly imperialistic. And not shy about it either. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the Bush Doctrine, they all spell out goals for the US that are focused on global American hegemony, interventionist foreign policy and the use of force. The War on Terror, thanks to the immensely convenient 9/11 attacks, is the pretext for realizing those goals.

Authoritarian personality provides support for the movement, and the movement's growth in turn legitimizes and promotes authoritarian individuals (and not just in government). With the rise in authoritarianism comes all those nasty things like the loss of civil liberties, the abuse of power, corruption, cronyism, etc. That dynamic does not exist in the UK at the moment, at least not to the same extent (I suppose it exists everywhere to varying degrees), and so other factors like oppositional tactics, play a greater role.

What I find the most concerning is that the authoritarian "conservative" movement in the US seems to have a very high threshold for inflicting damage on American institutions and traditions. I fear that they will incite, commit or allow acts of terrorism or harmful negligence in order to cow the citizenry and maintain control over the civilian government and armed forces.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"?

So, I wonder how this generation of "conservatives" mesh their desire for overwhelming government power with protecting basic liberties and freedoms.

Or, do we have an American right that is as radical as those Islamists who have a radical interpretation and application of sharia?

Strange fruit...strange fruit

Times on-line framing:

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty

The Government's plan is simply part of an assault on our ancient rights

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4075503.ece

MSNBC framing:

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

In rebuke to administration, suspects may appeal in U.S. civilian courts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

The poor constitution can't get a break. MSNBC says the Gitmo "terrist" detainees won. They were "backed" by the SCOTUS. Odd because these so called conservatives are usually going on about the constitution this and the constitution that...

I agree with this fellow responding to Glenn:

@ Glenn Greenwald

This skepticism of Government power -- which lies not only at the heart of most key British reforms over the last 8 centuries but also at the heart of the American Founding -- is precisely what has been missing almost completely from the American Right, for which there is now no federal government power too great or too unlimited to embrace.

Oh, there are plenty of powers "conservatives" in the US think the federal government can't be trusted with -- market regulation, providing economic safety nets, protecting our environment, single-payer universal health care, etc, etc.

-- bearpaw1

Presaged by Chesterton perhaps, who didn't care for labels, either.

The poor object to being governed badly. The rich object to being governed at all.

G.K. Chesterton

http://www.chesterton.org/discover/lectures/10thursday.html

Chesterton's own theological and political views were far too nuanced to fit comfortably under the "liberal" or "conservative" banner. And in his own words he cast aspersions on the labels saying, "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Yes, there are some things that the government must do and even the constitution allows for this. These things are not "unconstitutional" no matter how much the "Ron Pauls, Bruce Feins and Bob Barrs" say they are. Little things like levying taxes and promoting the "General Welfare" and a whole lot more.

Greenwald... I personally don't care what motives drive a politician to say the right things or take the right positions -- in part because I don't think you can really divine motives and in part because I don't think it matters.

That's how we got into this mess. "Compassionate conservatism," anyone? They will say anything that suits their ends so there are no principles in politics other than the acquisiton of political power so the secondary motives for acquiring that power - motives other than just for the sake of power - then become important and not all that difficult to divine. The "Ron Pauls, Bruce Feins and Bob Barrs" are just jockeying for the best position to grab that ring. What they do with it if they get it is of conern to us all. They may not lie us into a war or imprison thousands upon thousands for smoking a weed but they are still in a positon to become the greater of two evils. The lesser of two evils is the best we can expect, not because government is evil but because we must choose from a group of candidates who want that job, and the political power that goes along with it, so much they actively seek it out and dedicate their lives to doing so. We could adopt the Skinnerian solution and pick the person who least wants the job. I've always liked the idea but it is only hypothetical and true anarchists are very rare.