Fun with Comments...

I received a comment recently about my post, Reading the Mount Vernon Statement: Today's Conservatives Want You To Think They're George Washington's Cousins.... The comment was anonymous, and it was just a short piece of sarcastic dribble. So I rejected it in accordance with my policy on moderating comments. But after thinking about it, I decided the comment provided me at least a few talking points. Here is the comment:

Bravo, Comrade! Bravo!

WE, you know, the 'collective' need to just keep thinking this way!!!!

You're a CLASS ACT! Keep right on with your message; your (sic) right on target!!

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo

It's a nice succinct comment that employs one of the most common strategies conservatives use: if you can't argue with it (or if doing the working involved in making a real argument requires too much effort) just make fun of it instead.

I wrote 1300 or so words - US political history, analysis of the Mount Vernon Statement, and opinion. The commenter (who can't be bothered to identify himself or herself) doesn't contest a single point of history as I presented it. All they have to offer is sarcasm - and a little bad grammar (the your should be "you're").

Reading the Mount Vernon Statement: Today's Conservatives Want You To Think They're George Washington's Cousins...

I recently read through a document called The Mount Vernon Statement - Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century (you can read it here). The MVS was signed back in February by 80 conservative leaders on the estate of President George Washington.

Depending on which bloggers and commentators you follow, it was either “sheer brilliance” or “a steaming pile of excrement.” Some saw it as a unifying document for the various strands of conservatism; to others it was so vague as to be meaningless – a rehashing of traditional conservative platitudes in a somewhat more libertarian vocabulary.

Image Courtesy of Laura Padgett

As I read through it, the first thing that struck me was simple. Why did they have to use Constitutional as an adjective instead of a noun? Why isn’t the sub-title simply “Constitutionalism: A Statement for the 21st Century?” I suppose the answer to that question is that the MV Statement is written by conservatives for conservatives, and they can’t just leave the “C:” word out. But it’s really not about constitutional conservatism (which some would argue is an oxymoron), it’s about conservative constitutionalism – and the conservatives bring their own slant to the Constitution, their own exegesis and hermeneutics.

At the heart of the MV Statement is this proclamation of five “first principles” for conservatives:

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

While libertarians were represented among the 80 conservatives present at the signing, many libertarian bloggers have complained that the first three principles are contradictory to the last two. They claim that you sacrifice individual liberty when you emphasize community and religion. They feel that any role for America as the world’s policeman simple goes beyond the powers expressed (or even implied) in the Constitution.

Outside the libertarian fold, many see the statement as somewhat cynical. The signing was attended by 80 Bush-era politicos – people who really do believe in individual liberty (except for habeas corpus and the right to privacy) and in limited government (meaning that they can limit taxes and limit regulation on business, but expand the military and the government’s role in social policy to their hearts’ content). They claim that personal liberty is under attack, that the government is tossing aside the Constitution and simply doing as it pleases – yet they cite not a single example. It’s hard to believe they expect to be taken seriously. And their document may be a simple effort to put a saddle on the tea party and see how far they can ride it.

I tend to agree that the Mount Vernon Statement is vague. The five-point foundation for the document is almost ecumenical.

• Who among us doesn’t believe in limited government? We simply disagree as to where those limits are. In the blithering hyperbole of today’s political environment, people yell “socialism!” because they’ve never lived somewhere where you can’t legally buy a beer or kiss your wife in public, where women can’t drive (at any age) or where there’s an internal security act that allows for your indefinite detention without charge or trial, or where the government can tell you how many kids to have (and make it stick).
• What politically active American doesn’t believe in individual liberty (as he perceives it)? We can disagree on how that applies to gun laws or to our right to choose a life partner, but we all believe in it.
• We all believe in capitalism and entrepreneurship; we simply disagree about how much it should be taxed and regulated.
• Freedom from tyranny for starving children in Asia or Africa pulls at the emotions of most Americans (though we may not agree as to what to do about it).
• We all love our families, our communities, and our religion (though we may disagree as to exactly how government should go about protecting those things).

The statement could easily unify most Americans if the word conservative was deleted in a few places.

Image Courtesy of chadh

Perhaps the most disingenuous (though dangerous) aspect of the new conservative push is its effort to rewrite history. I once watched a preacher in Georgia hold up his King James Bible and called out: “Brothers and Sisters, if the King James Version was good enough for Paul and Silas, then it’s good enough for me!” Scattered amens… Who needs newer, more modern translations, right? Of course, Paul and Silas had both been dead for over 1500 years when James I got his popular Bible translated. But many in the congregation seemed unaware of that.

Today’s modern conservatives take a similar approach to rewriting history. They hope you're unaware of history. They want to pose as having historic ties of some kind to the “republicans” of early US history – like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. But these men were members of a political party that called itself the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson saw the small time farmer (not banks and commerce) as central to American life. And when the Democratic-Republicans broke up in the 1820’s, the modern Democratic Party was born - and its first candidate, Andrew Jackson, became President. Other factions of the defunct Democratic-Republicans founded the short-lived National Republican Party, and later the Whigs. And when the Whigs fell apart as a political party (another 30 years down the road), some (including Abraham Lincoln) joined a new party that had been founded in 1854 – the Republican Party of today.

The modern conservatives we have now would like to shape that Republican Party, but they themselves have been around with their unique mix of beliefs only since the 1950’s – since William F Buckley, Jr. of the National Review and Robert W Welch, Jr. of the John Birch Society. Their claim to have ties with the Founding Fathers is fabricated and their presentation of early American figures (like Jefferson) as “Republicans” of today is at best misleading.

Image Courtesy of Cliff1066

Part of the irony is that today’s modern conservatives have more in common with the Federalists – Jefferson’s political opposition – because of their focus on commerce and banking. They seem to know that, and they express admiration for Alexander Hamilton (founder of the Federalist Party). Yet it was Hamilton who tried to minimize the power and role of states in the new union by having the federal government pay off state debts from the Revolutionary War. Hamilton was the most powerful voice of early American history in favor of a strong, active central government. He came just short of calling for the abolition of the states and thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. His Federalist Papers paved the way for courts to interpret the Constitution so that federal powers could be seen as implied when they weren’t explicitly spelled out.

Image Courtesy of The Gifted Photographer

The reason modern conservative keep referring back to the Sharon Statement of 1960 as a model for their new Mount Vernon Statement is simple: their history doesn’t actually go much farther back than that. They just want you to think it does. If they rub their statues of Thomas Jefferson against their shirts often enough, perhaps people will begin to think they really are related…

Take your pick: When today's conservatives say they are the political heirs of the Founding Fathers, they are either being deceitful or they are deluded.

And that sound you hear? It’s George Washington turning over in his grave. Having dedicated his life to change and formed a new nation (along with a new model for nation-states) more or less from scratch, it’s hard to make him out to be much of a conservative. And having lived and died without affiliation to any political party, it’s hard to see him as the approving voice for the sort of partisan bickering today’s conservatives seem to thrive on.

From Winter to Summer (and Back Again)

Just a few short weeks after our most recent snowfall (a couple of inches back in mid-March) it was in the mid-80's for a couple of days this week. It looked this morning like some of the apple trees are starting to blossom. And the grass will have to be mowed earlier in the year than usual. But now a cold front has come through and the mercury has fallen back down into the 40's for a day or two. We'll see what else April has in store for us...

What to Call Tea Ba… ah, er… Tea People

It was pointed out to the recently that Tea Party Activists don’t appreciate the term “Tea Baggers.” I hadn’t really thought about the terminology much myself. I knew there was some reference to an obscure sexual preference, and I saw it discussed once in an out take from Sex in the City. I don’t really want to discuss it here. Go look for it on Wikipedia or something if you really want to know…

I put the whole thing in the same category as the iPad joke on Mad TV (see the video). Steve Job’s iPad is a few weeks old. The Mad TV clip is three years old. Maybe Jobs wishes there were more women in the room when the iPad was named. But no one’s going to change the name now. And iPad has become such a powerful brand name in such a short period of time that no one really thinks of any feminine products when you talk about the iPad now.

Where did the term Tea Bagger come from? There’s a picture out there in cyberspace from one of the early Tea Party events: a kid holding a sign that says "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You." What do you call people who “tea bag” people? Duh. Tea Baggers.

And the term stuck. I think some prominent figures in the movement used that term early on, but I can’t find the video. I could be wrong about that…

The movement has been around since February of 2008. And it’s made it into a few dictionaries. According the New Oxford American Dictionary, a Tea Bagger is "a person who protests President Obama’s tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as ‘Tea Party’ protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773)." The word was a finalist in 2009 in that dictionary's contest for "word of the year."

So the term Tea Bagger is probably here to stay. Tea People need to get used to it, and accept the fact that almost no one is thinking of some kind of sexual activity when they use the term (unless a Tea Bagger decides to remind everyone of that old – and now secondary – meaning for the term).

Is it a friendly term? That’s a different question. Obviously, any time you call an individual or a group by a name they don’t really like, that’s not a positive term. And to be perfectly honest, when I use the term Tea Bagger it’s not because of my profound respect for Sarah Palin’s intellectual abilities, or because I support the agenda of the Tea Party in general. I admit, Tea Bagger is a vaguely derisive term. And that’s okay on a blog. Blogs are supposed to have an agenda. Blogs are editorial in nature. I don’t like the Tea Party. You should be able to tell that when you read what I have to say.

That makes the term Tea Bagger inappropriate in a straight new context. So what term do you use on page one of a paper? I’ve seen Tea Partiers and Tea Partyers; I’m not sure who will settle the spelling dispute… Tea Party Activists? That probably also works. I actually like that better.

I occasionally write other places where my political opinion isn’t supposed to impact the content. So I use that term there. When you see the term “Tea Party Activists” in my writing you’ll know I’m trying to appear objective about the movement.

So if I use the term "tea bagger" from time to time, I have the dictionary definition mentioned above in mind, and it's not some weak attempt at a double entendre. I won't make too much of an effort to appear objective (by confining myself to terms like "tea party activists") very often. That would be hypocritical of me…

Morgan Griffith Running in the Ninth District

I recently submitted the following letter to the editor to a number of local and regional papers...

Dear Editor:

Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), the current Majority Leader for the Virginia House of Delegates, has decided to run for Congress. And he wants to represent us here in the Ninth District, even though he’s never actually lived in the Ninth District. I guess after getting little Willie Morefield elected out here with their money, Republicans from the Eastern part of the Commonwealth think they can just start sending us their candidates! Well, as a resident of the Ninth District, I resent it.

Why does Morgan Griffith believe the people of the Ninth are incapable of representing themselves? The Census hasn’t even been taken yet and state GOP leaders are already preparing to redraw our lines to fit their political needs. They can’t find a resident Republican in the Ninth District to run for Congress here, so they’ll import someone.

Morgan Griffith is a city boy who will serve the region poorly. He has little insight into our needs or our values. We don’t need his hypocrisy out here; Griffith is one of those GOP ideologues who likes to talk about how much he hates the stimulus and then show up at ribbon cuttings for projects funded with stimulus money. His home town of Salem has benefited more from Stimulus money than any place in Virginia outside Richmond. He’s gotten $1287 per person in Stimulus dollars for the people he represents there.

We don't need a political opportunist from outside the Ninth District to represent us in Congress. If Griffith wants to run for Congress, let him run in the Sixth District, where he lives. We don't want a stranger representing us.

Greg Cruey
Adria, Virginia

Since submitting the letter, I've realized that the US Constitution allows any resident of Virginia to represent the Ninth District - regardless of where they reside in the state. Griffith doesn't need redistricting to redraw the Ninth around his house, after all.

Boucher's Vote on HR 3940 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

HR 3940 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 219 in favor to 212 against. My Congressman, Rick Boucher, voted against the bill. I'm told that he waited until after the bill had its required 216 "yes" votes (and had passed) before he cast his "no" vote.

Boucher published a statement on the reasons for his vote. Takes some time to read ther, here.

---

I understand Boucher's complaints about cuts to Medicare funding. I'm sure there are a number of people in Congress who are now looking around and thinking that it would be nice to find ways to restore those losses within the budget process. There will be time to do that; maybe it will happen. As the economy continues recovery, Federal revenue will increase. Budgeting is an ongoing process...

Did the original Senate Bill include some distasteful deals? Yes. But it was also clear that the reconciliation package would remove those.

It is disingenuous and problematic for Rick to say that he is voting against the bill (HR 3590) because it doesn't include meaningful tort reform or relieve the disparity in Medicare funding between urban areas and rural areas. It is disingenuous because we certainly wouldn't get either of those things if the bill hadn't passed. It is problematic because Rick will probably be provided with many more opportunities now to vote against other bills because they don't contain those things. In fact, if he continues to use those criteria he may never vote in favor of another bill for the remainder of his time in Congress.

I was asked repeatedly by one of Rick's people if I'd be unhappy with a "no" vote from him if the bill passed anyway. Wonder what Rick would have done if it hadn't passed without his vote - 215 to 215 with his vote left to cast...?

Is President Obama a Socialist?

Business Week (we all know what a liberal rag that is) ran a story last year that I recently stumbled upon and thought was both entertaining and informative. It asked the question: Is President Obama a Socialist?

The simple answer is no. And, judging from the article, no is also the complicated answer, the short answer, and the long answer. It’s the reasonable answer.

Let’s define Socialism. Socialism is an economic and political theory that advocates state ownership of major industries as a tool for distributing wealth more evenly in a society.

While Rush Limbaugh and others like him on the Far Right get political mileage out of implying that President Obama is a Socialist, the real Socialists of the world beg to differ, according to the Business Week article.

They say if the Obama Administration were establishing a true socialist state, we'd have at least a $15-an-hour minimum wage (instead of the current $6.55 federal minimum) and 30-hour workweeks. Every American would be guaranteed employment and health-care coverage. Oh, and homeless people would be occupying vacant office buildings in cities and vacant McMansions in the suburbs.

Business Week talked to Frank Llewellyn, national director of the New York-based Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest U.S. Socialist party, and to Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science at City University of New York (CUNY) and an honorary chair of the DSA. They also talked to a representative of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in Chicago and the Socialist Party USA in New York. In their view, President Obama is not trying to take over private sector industry and turn it into something run by the state to benefit the masses. Instead, he is “scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism.”

How influential are these Socialist political groups? The Socialist Party USA has 1,500 members. The much larger DSA has a whopping 7,000 members. By comparison, Wikipedia says there are about 55 million registered Republicans and 72 million registered Democrats in the US. The Coffee Party has 172,000 fans on Facebook and the Tea Party Patriots page has 115,000.

On Mar. 6 (2009) a New York Times reporter asked Obama whether his domestic policies indicated the President is a socialist. Obama laughed, replying "the answer would be no." In a later telephone call to the paper, Obama said enormous taxpayer sums had been injected into the financial system before his election. "The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk-taking has precipitated a crisis," Obama told the newspaper.

While the bailouts of 2009 may have given the federal government an ownership stake in a few industries, the Obama Administration never tried to take over the decision making process in at any major company. At worst, the administration may have stepped in and voiced an opinion on some management practices (particular those tied to executive compensation).

Of course, bank regulators come in and take over banks that are insolvent. Is that Socialism? We haven’t thought so in the past. And bankruptcy courts usually tell businesses how they can structure a plan to pay off their debts. Is that Socialism? Again, we haven’t thought so in the past.

It’s tempting to say that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t actually know what a Socialist is. But that’s obviously not true. He may be a Far Right ideology, but Rush is smart. He knows what a Socialist is. He knows Obama is not one. And Rush would like to expand the definition of Socialism to change that – at least in the public mind.

In the words that one prominent politician used recently, the idea that President Obama is a Socialist – well, that’s “barkings from the nether reaches of Glennbeckistan…”

Moderating Comments

I received a comment recently. It was anonymous. It said, basically, that I'm too much of an egomaniac to approve comments on my blog if they disagree with me. Of course, I've approved plenty of comments from people who disagree with me. Examples exist here, here, and here.

I've neglected this blog recently. I maintain about 20 blogs (it varies from week to week) and most of them pay me to write. This one doesn't pay me. It's my personal blog.

This one is also getting spammed. I had 148 comments when I decided to moderate the anonymous comment I discussed above (I rejected it). Most were in Chinese. Many advertized cheap drugs. Some wanted me to look at pictures of someone's girlfriend. I'm not going to unmoderate my comments.

My rules are simple. First, it's my blog and I approve comments because I see fit to approve them. Second, I generally don't approve comments that are abusive. Third, I don't approve comments that are both negative and anonymous. If you want to disagree with me on my own blog, get a Google ID.

Am I a Liberal

Am I a liberal?

Someone recently suggested that I was “a raging liberal.” It made me wonder if I actually qualify. So…

Abortion: Most Democrats consider me to be pro-life because I’m not convinced that abortion on demand is a woman’s right. The Evangelical Right preaches that the Bible clearly teaches that life (meaning our humanity) begins at conception. I won’t get into the theology here, but I disagree with them. My disagreement is based on my understanding of specific portions of the Bible. And in a discussion of the issue, we’d be discussing the meaning of Bible passages that we both consider inspired and inerrant. Does that make me a liberal? I haven’t formulated a law or policy. But I think the positions of both the Religious Right and the pro-abortion lobby are too absolute, too extreme.

Gay Marriage: I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe marriage is a religious institution. Gay couples can already live in the same house and think of themselves as partners in any state. With the help of a lawyer they can bequeath their possessions to each other – it’s just not automatic, like it would be if they were legally married. I’m not sure why government should be involved in licensing marriage at all. Leave it to churches.

Gun Control: I have several guns in my house. I even shoot them occasionally. It’s clear that the Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms. I’m not sure the Founding Fathers meant for that to include the personal ownership of a bazooka , a sawed off shotgun, or an Uzi.

Immigration: I don’t really have a position. I understand that most undocumented immigrants are something like economic refugees. I understand that they broke US law by crossing the border, but I don’t think that THAT alone makes them criminals in the same since that bank robbers and burglars are criminals. I understand the argument that they contribute to the economy. I understand the argument that they take jobs from citizens. I’m not sure how I’d balance those arguments.

Taxation: I think of taxes (and other forms of government revenue) on a scale with two ends – one progressive, the other regressive. Everyone (or at least the vast majority of adults) should contribute to the cost of government. A progressive tax is one that solicits a larger share of revenue from those most able to pay. A regressive tax is one that raises revenue from those who are less able to pay. Flat rates and sales taxes are generally regressive. I prefer progressive forms of taxation. But there is always room to simplify the paperwork and record keeping involved in any tax system.

Fiscal Responsibility: Like most Americans, I think it would be marvelous if the government could live within its means. Of course, it hasn’t been able to do that for decades. Efficiency and cost cutting have to be a focus of any government.

Health Care: We are the most prosperous society on Earth. And yet tens of millions of our citizens are reduced to going without basic preventative and family medical services because the lack medical insurance. The system currently in place means that those individuals show up at emergency rooms, run up a much bigger bill than could have been if they got regular medical care, and leave the rest of us to pay their bill. Those of us who do pay for insurance can have that insurance cancelled if we become “too much of a risk.” The cost of actual care keeps rising, but there are caps how much an insurance company is required to pay. Often, a profound illness (like cancer) can leave us bankrupt despite the fact that we pay for health insurance. Our health insurance can be in jeopardy of we change jobs, or if we go a period of time without a job. And then some of us can’t get coverage regardless of our ability to pay because we have “a pre-existing condition.” Healthcare reform is a matter of social justice, of making America a fairer society, of basic human rights. But more practically, it’s an economic issue that will shape our future as a country. We have a vested interest in health care because a healthy population is more productive. And health insurance reform (including some form of a public option) is in itself a matter of fiscal responsibility. It is fiscally irresponsible NOT to reform health insurance.

Energy & the Environment: I like animals and fresh veggies. I’m not sure I expect Norfolk to be flooded by melting ice caps in the next few decades; but I’m also not sure I don’t. If we can make cheaper energy, I’m in favor of that. If we can make cleaner energy, I’m in favor of that. Lower emissions and higher gas mileage sound like good things, to me.

So, am I a liberal?

Boucher, Hell, and Health Care

I'm watching an ad (paid for by http://www.EmployersForAHealthyEconomy.org/) about how RICK BOUCHER (D-Va) stood up to Washington on Health Care and voted NO on Health Care Reform that would have raised the cost of health insurance. The ad wants me to call his Washington office and let him know how much I appreciate him standing up for me.

Well, I'm the vice-chair for an itsy-bitsy little Democratic Party committee in Tazewell County. And if Rick doesn't vote

FOR

health care reform at some point, he can

GO TO HELL

in 2010 as far as I'm concerned. I won't vote for the Republican. But I'll vote for someone else in the primary (if he has an opponent). And I sure as crap won't vote FOR HIM in the general election.

His statements to the Party faithful say that the current bill isn't perfect yet. The ads on TV say he's protecting us against Washington. He needs to decide - soon. Until then, I've lost my interest in his re-election...