Pangloss

I think the real issue here, from a political perspective, is that this is falling during the very time when Democrats/liberals are launching their effort to "retake the White House". The mid-term election in a few weeks, and the 2008 presidential election, will form a two-prong attack on that goal. The situation is identical to how it was with conservatives in the late 1990s. That's when they were at their most vociferous, argumentative and unilateral (not to mention popular). The prime focus of that effort will be the attempt to portray the Bush administration as not only a failure, but a commonly accepted failure. Mark my words, the position will be that "everyone thinks so", regardless of what everyone actually does think. They'll use the a standard brainwashing tactic -- say something enough times and sooner or later everyone thinks it's actually true. That, also, is no different from what conservatives did at the end of the Clinton era. Didn't work then. Won't work now.

God forbid they should actually WATCH the movie before making a decision about Kean's bias or lack thereof!

This is a little essay I wrote for my school's humble literary journal which is publishing a special issue on Constitution Day next week. (As many of you know if you're working or attending a US learning institution, the government passed a special law mandating recognition of Constitution Day in all schools.) I'd appreciate any feedback. I have to turn this thing in over the weekend. You're helping me with my homework, you might say. ------------- Finding Middle Ground On this Constitution Day we will hear about all of the amazing powers of the Constitution. We’ll be told about the separation of powers and establishment of the three branches, the checks and balances, and the importance of the Bill of Rights. Pundits will explain about the protection of minorities from the will of the majority. Experts will talk about the difficult amendment process. Historians will reveal how our Constitution has served as a model for the birth of many other new democracies over the years. They’re all right. But the most amazing thing about the Constitution is the simple fact that it exists at all. Most people who lived through those turbulent years must have seen the Constitution as a failure. Those who believed that the most populous states should have the greatest say in how things should be done were thwarted by the creation of the Senate. Those who believed that all states should be represented equally were devastated by the configuration of the House of Representatives. And that was just the beginning – a list of the Constitution’s failures could go on and on. Those who wanted to end slavery certainly found little comfort in the Three-Fifths Compromise. And yet those who wanted their right to own slaves were no more comforted by the decision to prohibit slave trading. War powers, the exclusion of a “religious test” for political office, the presidential veto, due process, equal protection, copyright and contract protections, authority to restrict interstate commerce – all of these issues were only included as the direct result of vast compromises that left Americans on both sides feeling disappointed and betrayed. And yet, somehow, it worked. For 219 years the basic fabric of the Constitution has remained in place. It’s worked so well that today we take most of the structure of our government for granted. There have been changes (amendments) over the years, but if you look at how few they are, and how far between they came, it’s hard – no, impossible – to imagine a more successful plan for such a diverse group of people. If ever there was a time when we needed to remember this most important lesson of the Constitution, it is today. We live in a world where we are bombarded with extreme opinions, day and night, from pundit-laden 24-hour news channels to extremist radio talk show hosts, telling us what to think, what to feel, and what to do. As long as we’re buying, they’re selling. And what they’re selling is how to be uncompromising. It’s not hard to guess what the founding fathers would have thought of that. We are surrounded by examples of the ongoing importance of compromise. Airport security, federal spending on education and disaster relief, abortion, the death penalty, immigration – the list goes on and on. And of course the mother of all needs for compromise – Iraq – in which we find multiple highly opinionated groups of people who have little more in common than the territory they happen to reside in. (Sound familiar?) If there is a most blatant, glaring example of how the Constitution impacts our daily lives, it is in the way it employs compromise as a means to an end. No other aspect of it is more important. Were the founding fathers alive today, this is the one thing that would be foremost in their thoughts to remind us about.

Interesting posts. One thing that strikes me about the British system, as compared with the American system, is that it seems more malleable or flexible or steerable, however you want to put it. You're better able to change political direction once a consensus is reached. And in some ways it is more of a consensus, since consensus is required by the parliamentary system, whereas more and more of the American system is focused on the unitary executive branch, and meanwhile our legislative branch is backlogged, bogged-down, and overly politicized. (But of course I assume there's a tradeoff that goes with this in terms of potential callamity from going too far in what turns out to be a bad direction?) Of course I may be oversimplifying. Here's another question for our British members: How often do you guys typically vote? I'm asking both about national elections (I know you don't actually vote for the PM directly, but in terms of scope) and local elections. How much time do you actually spend in an election booth in a typical year?

(applause) That's a good start, but Bettina said something to the effect that China only cracks down on violent religions, so I would have pointed out that Falon Gong is hardly violent, and it's completely banned (not to mention the various constraints on Christianity). Bettina's post strikes me as a great example of the kinds of fallacious inroads China is making in the hearts and minds of modern Americans.

You mean the way he commuted nearly every death sentence that passed through his desk? (grin) I'm opposed to torture, but I'm keeping an open mind about interrogative techniques. As for due process against enemy comatants, that is a luxury which we can afford at some times and not others. My main concern there is that we have a reasonable level of check and balance within our governmental structure to prevent abuse as much as possible. That may mean additional restrictions on the executive branch, and if so those restrictions will need to be reasoned out in a non-partisan manner.

Can I have a poll entry for "the blind leading the blind"? I've never understood the whole "playing with fire" thing, much less the "let me show you how I play with fire" thing.

I'm curious what is the traditional Labour position on immigration vs the other major parties? In broad strokes? Just to toss another dimension into this discussion, which I don't think will take us too far off topic, I think it's interesting the way certain issues have a tendency to force voters into an issue-voting-after-the-fact posture, where you feel like you're voting based on displeasure over past events, rather than future preferences. I don't know if that's the case or not with you guys and Blair -- I don't mean to put words in your mouths or anything. But I think it's definitely a political factor over here in the states at the moment. I'm curious what you guys think about that influence in the UK.

Just for the sake of clarification, do I understand correctly that there's no term limit on a PM's time in office? And, am I correct in believing that his term is based on (a) his party's majority hold on government, and (b) his party's desire to see him run things? Regarding the Blair Prime Ministry (is that the correct term?) in general, *setting aside the issue of Iraq*, do you all generally feel that it has been a success or a failure? I realize Aardvark and Gcol and Dave have addressed this somewhat already, but I'd like to hear more along those lines, if it doesn't take us too far off topic.

Returning to the subject of the thread (hint, hint), I thought it was interesting some of the political wrangling that's going on over this move of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Guantanamo. The Bush administration seems to be turning this into a bit of a political coup. According to Bush, and allegedly confirmed by inside sources in various news stories, the "waterboarding" of Mohammed led directly to the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was one of the 9/11 planners. HIS "waterboarding" lead directly to the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was yet another key figure in Al Qaeda. The techniques, which were ostensibly applied only after normal interrogation failed, also provided information which lead to the stopping of numerous terrorist plots. Of course, that's the claim, and whether it's true or not is something that has to be established objectively after full revelation of the evidence. But if it's true then it seems to support the use of something that lies between "interrogation" and "torture". Perhaps the book is "back open" on this subject. It will be interesting to see how much comes out during the trial process.

Thanks for the insight on that, I thought it was interesting. As a distant observer it's pretty hard to fathom the internal workings of another state's politics, but I still try anyway because I find the subject fascinating (for all the states, really). Somehow politics at the state level is just -- different -- from the national level. I'm not sure why, but it's certainly a recurring theme. Anyway, getting back to your question, let me compare Florida with another state that happens to be both (a) easy to pick on, and (b) familiar to me, which is Georgia. I think Floridians reap a benefit that Georgians don't, because the state is "contested" rather than "solid". National candidates spend more time here, pay more attention to local issues, and spend more time listening to local input. They spend more money here (which in this day and age can be a very large amount!) which helps the local economy, and we get the national spotlight which means we get to show people "how it's done". Of course when we screw up we get to reap the "benefits" of that as well. You take the good with the bad, I suppose. But on the whole, I'd rather be in a state where my vote actually matters, than one where it really doesn't.

Ecoli hits one key point squarely on the head of the nail. But I think you make a good point as well, Sisyphus. Florida is certainly no more virtuous than New York (by any measure), and not more virtuous for its content of extremist wackos. But I don't think that's really what makes Florida a contested state. Also I think New York is underrated in its contestability. For all its vaunted "blueness", it's somehow managed to elect a steady stream of Republicans to office over the years, from Teddy Roosevelt to George Pataki. Even better, those particular Republicans help smooth out the rough edges of partisanship and ideology that the Republicans the Southern states often represent. I'd like to get into this some more (I know I haven't really answered you question, sorry about that) but I'm literally running out the door right this second to teach a class! I'll check back in later tonight.

If there's one thing I'm clearly not, it's a "blind ideologue". (chuckle)

Well the simplest answer to your question is that Al Gore only lost by 537 votes. (grin) It's a culturally conservative state, which is why it keeps coming up red, but it's clearly not as solid as states like Georgia or Alabama. A lot of political observers think that Harris made a huge mistake in pandering to the far right, as that approach has never really worked in Florida (and since she took that approach her political advisers have been abandoning her like rats from a sinking ship). Another stunning example came this very same week in the race for Governor (Jeb Bush is up against a term limit) -- the far right Republican candidate was absolutely TROUNCED by his opponent, a moderate divorcee. This is why so much attention is focused on Florida in the major elections. It's not just that it's populous, it's that it's populous and contestable. (Something all states should aspire to, but that's another discussion I suppose.)

Well we sprung them for a reason, didn't we?! Perhaps that's a valid danger here, but look at it another way: Isn't the rising price of oil the very thing we've always sought as the "Path to Oil Independence"? Sure we're finding more expensive oil, but we'll never see CHEAP oil again. What does this mean for less expensive alternate energy forms? Will solar become more economical? What else is out there? I think when we look back at it in a century or two, we'll see that we took slow steps in the right direction over a very long period of time, avoiding both economic disaster and global warming at the same time, by being reasonable and gradual in the steps we took.

Well whadya know, President Bush reads SFN! Breaking news today: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470

Chevron's Deep Oil Field strike yesterday was big news. It's the biggest find since Prudhoe Bay, and it could increase domestic reserves by as much as 50-65 percent, to as many as 38 billion barrels. Still a far cry from those of Saudi Arabia (260+) or Iran (133?), of course. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15449975.htm http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2397397 As the price of oil increases, more expensive sources can be tapped economically, and I think we'll see a lot more of this. I don't think the end is a century away, I think the end is *centuries* away. This drill, while 30 thousand feet long (10k' water, 20k' land), only drips into the top portion of the Earth's crust. That's the limit of today's technology. But what about tomorrow's?

There's no question that her play to the far right has been a major factor in the election. She went in that direction after it became clear that she was lacking in major support from the state Republican Party (Jeb Bush, who was her own boss, actually encouraged Republicans to run against her!). Donations were so slim that she ended up throwing her entire $10 million paternal inheritance into the pot. Unfortunately she was running against a field of unknowns with few resources. I only knew one of the four names in the ballot that I saw yesterday. The party basically threw in the towel and conceeded to Bill Nelson and the Democrats. This happens a lot in politics, of course. And I like Bill Nelson so I don't really have a problem with it in this particular case, although I find a lot to be desired in the way elected officials so often run unopposed, for example. I guess I should be glad there is some kind of competition here.

When did he say that?

Partly intended as amusement, but certainly of political note, I thought I'd pass along a Katherine Harris update. Most of you will remember her as the Florida election official who was in charge during the 2000 Presidential Election fiasco. Anyway, she's been a House rep from the Tampa/St. Petersburg area (where Blike, the owner of this board, originates -- it's all his fault, not mine!!). But this year she's been running for the Senate. Today she won the Republican Primary. She's unlikely to win in November, however, since she faces a strong incumbent in popular moderate Democrat Bill "146 Hours in Space" Nelson.

... while mouthing mantras about liberals and global warming...

I would love to see a libertarian shake things up a bit in the House. I would love even more to shake some of that House Republican resolve and overconfidence.

Haha, nice response. Which reminds me, I need to go vote today in the primaries. My House rep is up (the one who personally promised me he'd put up a "real" replacement for the Assault Weapons Ban, yet he never has) and I'm hoping against hope that he has some real competition this year instead of running unopposed again in both primary and general. In 2004 I had to settle for a near-worthless Libertarian vote. (chuckle)