Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Just when you think Worldnutdaily founder Joseph Farah can't get any more unhinged, he writes a column like this calling for the United States to break up. Predictably, it's full of idiotic claims. I especially like this one:
Frankly, I don't see a way to unite a people as divided as Americans are today. We are trying to pretend we're one nation when we are really two.One of those two nations clings to the promises and covenants of the past, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, as the guiding principles. The other believes in and lives with no immutable standards.
It's not a Republican vs. Democrat split - as the current election illustrates. I know many Republicans would find themselves more comfortable in the country of no standards. I also suspect many Democrats would actually find themselves more at home in the nation of the Bible, Declaration and Constitution.
Aw come on, Joe; what did that poor straw man that you're beating up ever do to you? This is back to that ridiculous right wing notion that anyone who doesn't believe in them doesn't have any standards or rule. But all that really means is that there are people who value liberty more than authoritarianism and the imposition of narrow, bigoted religious declarations on those who don't agree with those declarations.
My vision of the world is one in perfect harmony with the Bible, the Declaration and the Constitution. But these standards have been run over, obscured, distorted, demolished, nullified, undone, vandalized. Since, historically, it was the Bible, the Declaration and the Constitution that held us together, what binds us today? Shouldn't those of us who upheld the commitment to those standards have the right, in fact, the duty, to separate ourselves from those who have gutted them?
I'm all for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Funny, though, the Bible isn't mentioned anywhere in either of those documents, nor are there any serious ideas found in either the Declaration or the Constitution that are also found in the Bible.
Politics
Comments
As always, Ed, you are on the money.
But I am not so sure the idea of splitting the country is a bad idea. I am not so sure you can argue logically with The We're-So-Righteous Crowd. They have never proved their religion to themselves. They have simply accepted it a priori. (Or ex nihilio.) They have been telling themselves for so long that Bible = Constitution = Religion = Freedom that nothing will ever penetrate the veil.
Posted by: Blue Nine | October 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Can't we give them the Dakotas and be done with it?
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 10:01 AM
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!
Today's comment has been brought to you by the letter C and the number 7.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 27, 2008 10:13 AM
Tuse - Probably gibe them a phonebox on one of the USA's Pacific Dependencies, hell we'll sell 'em Nauru. At least they could replenish the guano on the island. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 27, 2008 10:20 AM
Not being myself an American, this may be a bit alarmist, but I've occasionally read some of my American liberal and/or rational friends talking about the possibility of a civil war, ignited by this very tension. The current "real America" rhetoric from the McCain side certainly pushes public discourse closer to that abyss, and Farah's drooling makes it pretty explicit.
Will we see rioting on the streets of Small Town America if Obama wins the election?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 27, 2008 10:25 AM
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
-
Some anti-American commie with no immutable standardsThomas JeffersonPosted by: James F | October 27, 2008 10:28 AM
I also suspect many Democrats would actually find themselves more at home in the nation of the Bible, Declaration and Constitution.
Yeah, those of us Democrats who actually understand the teachings of Jesus, and are smart enough, and compassionate enough, to apply the said teachings within the bounds of the Constitution.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 10:28 AM
Oh, and Tulse: not North Dakota, please. That's right next to the Canadian border, and I think we'd prefer a good buffer around the Christianist Quarantine Zone.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 27, 2008 10:29 AM
Given that the latest polls show a tie between Obama and McCain in North Dakota, I would alternately propose giving the South Carolina since the Christian Exodus folks are already moving there.
Posted by: carlsonjok | October 27, 2008 10:31 AM
Eamon: Will we see rioting on the streets of Small Town America if Obama wins the election?
I doubt we will see outright rioting but the extreme right wing separatists/domestic terrorist groups will definitely be getting more members. People are going to be upset that a "black liberal Muslim"(sic) is the president and they'll want to take their aggression out someway.
Posted by: IasonOuabache | October 27, 2008 10:31 AM
My vision of the world is one in perfect harmony with the Bible, the Declaration and the Constitution.
Can the world really be in perfect harmony with all three of those things at the same time?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 27, 2008 10:37 AM
I just have one question for Mr. Farah: Is that a real mustache in your picture, or did someone draw that on with a Sharpie?
Good God, Man!
Posted by: Skip Evans | October 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Raging Bee,
and who gets to decide which of the "teachings" of jesus should be applied to the Constitution? only the "real" christians? and how do you know which of the ravings and rantings of the bible are "really important scripture" and which ones are just metaphors? KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Posted by: Amar | October 27, 2008 10:40 AM
I've never understood how a certain type of conservative can be so comfortable championing sedition and treason, while at the same time calling the rest of us un-American.
Of course most conservatives don't do this. If they did, the tide wouldn't be turning the way it currently appears to be. What really disturbs Farah is the dawning awareness of just out of touch his whacked out vision of America is.
Posted by: Observer | October 27, 2008 10:46 AM
I agree with Blue Nine; the hardcore religious right simply won't allow themselves to reconcile with the Enlightenment mores that founded the country. Hell, that's why they're so stridently trying to rewrite history, making the Founders all theocratic loonies like themselves.
Will we see rioting on the streets of Small Town America if Obama wins the election?
Eh, maybe. The true believers, the ones who immediately bought into the "Obama is a Muslim/Antichrist/whatever" bullshit, will probably get even more psychotic if Obama wins. The problem is, the social conservatives (i.e. religious moderates, if that) don't like that behavior one bit. I'm thinking the conservative intellectual exodus is just the tip of pretty serious schism (again, if Obama wins; if McCain wins, somehow, his behavior will be retroactively validated and the tent will remain intact).
Posted by: schism | October 27, 2008 10:47 AM
given how the bible contradicts itself, the world can't be in perfect harmony with all parts of that text alone at any one time.
that said, the current political polarization and antagonism in the USA does concern and worry me. i don't see any way to mitigate it, either. talk of splitting the country because of it is of course nonsense, as the disagreements don't sort out along neat geographical lines, but it's hard to see how any useful political work can be done in the face of such acrimony as we have between the two parties at present.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | October 27, 2008 10:48 AM
@Eamon: Speaking as another non-American...
> I've occasionally read some of my American liberal and/or
> rational friends talking about the possibility of a civil war
I've heard this quite a lot in the past but to be honest I think any chance of violence from this reason (as opposed to riots from the economically deprived) are slim to nil.
What I think will happen post November 5th is that the vast majority of Americans who have always been socially liberal will come to realize just how much disproportionate influence the religious right have had up to now.
Given that the election result looks like it can only be stopped now by grand scale fraud or some kind of man-made / natural disaster the more interesting discussion is what happens to the GOP next (see McCain's and Palin's people already fighting in the media).
Personally I hope for a complete sundering of the Republican party with a strongly lead secular / rational, elitist, low tax, small government, no-values discussion group emerging to challenge the Democrats on the issues.
Posted by: David Durant | October 27, 2008 10:49 AM
From my perspective, they can have everything south of the Mason-Dixon line, from Georgia across to Texas. We've got enough good barbeque joints in the north now that we can be spare-rib independent.
Eamon, no, there'll be no rioting. Just the usual grumbling and predictions of catastrophe. But of course catastrophe never quite happens, and then it will be because through their prayers God saved us. As long as they keep clinging to the belief that it's God who's preventing the catastrophe, civil war remains quite improbable.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 27, 2008 10:50 AM
I'm reminded of this from four years ago. Given current trends we'd have to redraw the borders somewhat, but the basic idea is the same.
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 27, 2008 11:17 AM
James, I think the Mason-Dixon is a few hundred miles north of Georgia. And you're still leaving me on he theocratic side. At least I'll get the good Bar-B-Cue.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 27, 2008 11:19 AM
No such thing is possible for right-wing fundamentalist, "Bible-believing" Christians. A quick scan of the Ten Commandments is enough to disabuse people of that notion.
But I think the unwritten conclusion Farah has unwittingly revealed is that he believes that he, and others like him, are losing the argument.
He is, of course, correct.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 11:23 AM
After the last two Presidential elections, both of which were *extremely* close, both Democratic candidates conceded very quickly, rationalizing that it would be better for the country and help the healing by not to put up a big stink and dragging things out by impugning the integrity of the electoral process. Even with Gore, his rhetoric centered on the wanting to be fair, not accusations of dishonestly. And after he lost his legal challenge in the Supreme Court, quickly conceded.
What I worry about, with all of McCain's rhetoric about Acorn as well as those on the far right, what happens if this election is also extremely close? Would McCain be so willing to "put country first"? Or would he instead cry foul and fight to the bitter end? In that scenario, he creates a large subset of the population on the Right who thinks the election was stolen, much more so than in 2000, since 1) He's played the "don't trust Obama" card particularly hard, 2) He's put everyone on edge for imagined fraud and 3) The Right tends to be more reactionary and more prone to perceived injustice anyway.
I hope not. If Obama wins, I hope he wins by a big enough margin to squash any controversy or I hope McCain concedes gracefully, or else it escalates this type of tension about 100 times.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | October 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Excuse me, which group of people would most want to change the constitution and the declaration of independence?
Answers on a postcard marked "hypocrite"
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 27, 2008 11:31 AM
David Durant wrote "Personally I hope for a complete sundering of the Republican party with a strongly lead secular / rational, elitist, low tax, small government, no-values discussion group emerging to challenge the Democrats on the issues."
You mean libertarians and country-club Republicans.
Posted by: Bill in NC | October 27, 2008 11:42 AM
That would be Obama.
Ask not what the constitution prohibits the government from doing to the people. As what it empowers the government to do for the people. (And it defines what is "for".)
Sigh. For libertarians this election is a choice between a punch to the face or a kick to the groin.
Posted by: heddle | October 27, 2008 11:45 AM
Good point, but if we make it Montana, we can shove our Alberta loonies in there as well.
Posted by: Tulse | October 27, 2008 11:47 AM
heddle: For libertarians this election is a choice between a punch to the face or a kick to the groin.
For the rest of us, it's more like a choice of the Inquisition putting us onto the rack or the comfy chair.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 27, 2008 11:53 AM
"Can't we give them the Dakotas and be done with it?"
Back when I was a teen, and thoughts were about adding Alaska and Hawaii to the other forty-eight, some wise arsed politician suggested we could easily accommodate the two if we got rid of Alabama & Mississippi. LOL That didn't go over too well in some places.
Posted by: Bill Ware | October 27, 2008 11:55 AM
Amar: You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that certain liberals are capable of understanding the teachings of Jesus (the parts of the Bible we should consider important), and of applying those teachings in their own actions, without violating the Constitution. You really need to read things a bit more carefully.
heddle: so now you're calling yourself a "libertarian?" The Republicans embarrassed you that much? Sorry, dude, but after your full-throated (but empty-headed) support for Christianist wingnut Sarah Palin -- whose supporters have turned Alaska from a libertarian enclave to a radical-right fiefdom -- you can't credibly pretend you're a "libertarian."
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 12:02 PM
heddle, the person editorializing video leaps to a conclusion that isn't there. Obama says *several times* that the courts are not where the changes he believes are necessary will come from. In fact he argues that's why such changes must be made through legislation, not by rulings through the Supreme Court.
At the end he does say that "theoretically" anyone can come up with justifications for a rationale to doing it through the courts, but it's clear in his implication that he doesn't believe that is the way to go about it. (Not to mention it sounds like the recording is cut off at that point, so who knows what additional comments he made to clarify the context of his point.)
Frankly, that you link this recording reeks of desperation. If anything, this is an example of Obama opposing judicial activism. He didn't say that the Warren court wasn't radical enough, he said that it wasn't too radical.
Ed, perhaps you would like to comment (or post on it tomorrow?). But thanks, Dave, for linking the recording. I had heard it was going around, but I had expected it to be much more incendiary than it turned out to be. No matter what think of Obama's legislative agenda, there is nothing in this recording to confirm he would back any form of radical judicial activism of the courts.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 12:05 PM
Here is a more representative argument of Obama's position on the Constitution than the one Heddle presented. In my opinion it's Obama's finest speech. While it focuses on race relations, it does a fine job of referencing constitutionally ratified ideals and principles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
I make the claim representative because it is a written speech rather than a verbal reply to a question. I give my political opponents the same honor.
There were two areas where I do not agree with Obama in his speech at the Constitution Center that I linked to above, however those are political objections, not objections to his understanding of the Constitution.
One constitutional dispute I have with him is his desire for justices to favor "social justice" where I'd prefer they merely interpret the plain meaning of the text, in a context where the obligation is on the government to prove a delegated power rather than the person/people to prove a right. The idea that government has the bigger obligation to make their case is under much heavier attack by conservatives with their authoritarian bent than it is by liberals, with the exceptions being environmental law, gun rights, and property rights.
I also believe producers of Heddle's linked video mischaracterize the plain meaning of what Obama said in their textual summary at the end of his answer. I think because they are not constitutional scholars and misunderstood what he was stating in terms of which aspects are political vs. which parts fall under the balliwick of constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 12:15 PM
Andrew Sullivan's take on the recording heddle links, with a transcript:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/drudges-latest.html#more
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 12:17 PM
I think you are giving them way too much credit. They simply believe the Obama is telegraphing his true intentions through comments which, if you squint enough (or whatever the audio equivalent of squinting is) could be misconstrued as a radical viewpoint. They are just muckrakers who didn't realize they came up empty.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 12:23 PM
Here is a partial transcript:
Barack Obama:
Spin it however you like, it still comes up radical. My point stands--this election sucks for libertarians.
I was going to vote for this guy? I must have been on 'ludes.
The other point I'd make is this. There is a lot of talk, motivated by some intellectual conservatives leaving the GOP, that the present GOP is not the party of Goldwater republicans. True enough. On the flip side, Obama represents a Democratic party that is not the party of Kennedy, Humphrey, Moynihan, or Clinton. This is not your father's Democratic Party.
Posted by: heddle | October 27, 2008 12:27 PM
Of course folks like Farah want us split into two countries because then they can invade the Other country (after all, it's not the real part), "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Thus the communist and anti-American areas can be saved and again the country will be One Nation Under God.
Woe to those not on Their Side, since He so obviously is.
I know the divide is more than just religion, but so much is based on that. The evangelicals I know think that you are an immoral person if you do not have the same beliefs as they do. That morality only has One face. A pretty face...
Posted by: marnk | October 27, 2008 12:33 PM
Ragin Bee,
Pardon me if i 'misunderstood' you. Nevertheless, you only answered one of my questions, to which i have a follow up. If the 'teachings' of Jesus are 'the parts of the bible we should consider important', are you suggesting that the old testament should be taken out of the bible to make it more 'real christian'? just throw the whole thing out and think for yourself!
Posted by: Amar | October 27, 2008 12:42 PM
...sayeth the man with the Palin crush.
That's quite some hair of the dog you've got there.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Heddle - based on your comment I suspect someone slipped 'ludes into your breakfast cereal this morning. Did you actually read the answer that Senator Obama gave?
I paraphrase it thus:
The Civil Rights movement made a mistakes in going though the courts. The Supreme Court granted civil rights, but was too conservative, too bound to a strict reading of the Constitution, to create a framework for a economically and politically fairer America. Because the Civil Right Movement was too focused on getting civil rights, it forgot about political and economic fairness, and this filtered down to the grass-roots organisations that supported the Civil Rights Movement. It was this that lead to the increasing economic inequality in America [from the mid 60's onward]. - Nothing radical in that at all. Simply a discussion of the Civil Rights Movement's tactical errors, the Supreme Court's disinterest in pursuing a fairer system, their effect on subsequent generations. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 27, 2008 12:52 PM
DJ,
The Warren Court (The Warren Court!) "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."
Those pesky constraints. Those silly founding fathers. Friggin' Jefferson and Madison. And damn that right-wing Warren Court, damn them to hell!
No, nothing radical there DJ.
Posted by: heddle | October 27, 2008 1:02 PM
Dear America,
I'm terribly sorry I had to do this through a letter. But I was afraid I wouldn't get through this in person and I have some things that need to be said. This note will be the last memory you'll ever have of me, our relationship just isn't working out. Don't let it get you all upset inside, even though it was completely your fault, no doubt about it. Your inability to follow even the most basic commandments keeps me from being even remotely interested in continuing this relationship with you. It's time to break up.
You'd be much better off finding a person that can deal with your "fun" permissive attitude. Maybe one of those liberals you've been palling around with lately, like your new BFF Obama. I won't even get into all those other freaks you call friends. Whatever.
I might miss certain things about you, such as that time we added "Under God" to the Pledge. Oh those were happy days. But now it's all "wall of separation" and "equal treatment" with you. I'm sick of it.
I'm glad this is done and we're going separate directions for good. I wish you well and I hope you'll find someone to have a decent relationship with a person of the opposite gender. And hopefully we will be incredibly far away.
I Will Pray For You,
Religious Right
P.S.
You're getting fat. Seriously, loose some weight.
P.P.S.
I'm keeping Florida. It was a gift, so keeping it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 27, 2008 1:03 PM
Fine with me if they want their own country, but I insist on an impenetrable wall and absolutely no immigration from their country into mine except to clean my toilet and mow my lawn.
Posted by: Dr X | October 27, 2008 1:06 PM
heddle stated, "I was going to vote for this guy [Obama]? I must have been on 'ludes."
I continue to be amazed that someone, heddle in this case, who claims to be a physics professor takes a factor as a go/no-go decision point so out of context with all the other factors someone must consider when voting. Even if you are the type to establish a minimal set of standards the candidate you want to vote for must first be able to reach (e.g., honesty); this response can meet such a criteria given the forum and room for interpretation. heddle's "ludes" comment reeks of a knee-jerk emotional response where the person is looking to validate a preconceived prejudice. I would assume a physics prof has some ability to quantitatively structure the consideration of multiple factors and weight them accordingly when it comes to the seriousness of who we support and vote for in any election. I assume of course heddle takes his vote seriously given his active participation in this forum which takes time and energy.
Assuming heddle's interpretation of the transcript is correct, I doubt Obama could, if he wanted to, stack the court to do what heddle thinks Obama wants to do. It's like me not discounting McCain for his crazy-ass mortgage recovery plan or health care policy since it'd never fly in Congress; so I don't hold that against him. Furthermore, what we have here is a one-time verbal reply to a question that is not validated by any written text or written speeches supportive of Heddle's interpretation.
I certainly think a follow-up to Obama is appropriate for clarification, but I can see a couple of interpretations available so I do not support heddle's interpretation as the only one and would certainly not use it against any candidate who said this once when we have so many other factors where the facts are known clearly or publicly make it a no-brainer factor that should be a killer for Obama like heddle is promoting.
To use the same standard heddle used here as his no-go against any candidate would force voters to never vote for anyone. In fact I think it would be quite easy for a reasonable non-partisan to come up with many more objections about the McCain/Palin side than the Obama/Biden side if we were going to use their one-time quips where the meaning was clear.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 1:08 PM
Heddle posted:
[Emphasis mine]Aha! See what a difference READING the material makes!
Obama was arguing that SCOTUS was unable to change the constitution (which is as it should be) and the the CRM was focused on equal rights, this translated down the line into the grassroots and THEY forgot to use their newly guaranteed voting rights to change the law to allow more fairness. Not very radical at all -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 27, 2008 1:16 PM
For a more nuanced "spin" on the Obama interview from a decidedly non-left law prof (whom I previously never could have imagined citing favorably) in a decidedly non-left venue, see:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225104785
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | October 27, 2008 1:18 PM
"United Wingnut States of America" - sounds pretty cool. Only problem is that states would soon be divided by doctrinal issues. It would be amusing to see one group of wingnuts referring to another group of wingnuts as "communists."
Posted by: Les Lane | October 27, 2008 1:19 PM
Some legal heavyweights dispute heddle's interpretation. I've linked to money quotes version, the link below contains embedded links to actual blog posts for each expert:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/drudges-lates-1.html#more
Orin Kerr has blogged for years at the libertarian/conservative webiste, The Volokh Conspiracy". Which is where his embedded link originates. I highly respect his perspective; I don't know the other guy.
heddle - Mea culpa that your reaction should cause even you to think this one verbal response from Obama is justification to think it's crazy to support Obama because this is clear evidence of a radical agenda to mutate constitutional meaning/precedent?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 1:31 PM
I notice the bible always comes first when he mentions those three documents.
Posted by: Bachalon | October 27, 2008 1:32 PM
I see heddle no longer understands the meaning of the word "essential". Stop digging, Dave, you're just getting deeper into your own hole.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Abby - brilliant stuff. Heading off to repost elsewhere... :-)
Posted by: David Durant | October 27, 2008 1:41 PM
Excellent analysis, all round.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 1:46 PM
I just want to address your earlier point, M Heath.
"To use the same standard heddle used here as his no-go against any candidate would force voters to never vote for anyone."
I've been struggling with this ever since Obama voted for the FISA amendment. Where is the balance? Obviously we don't want to hold the perfect hostage to the good, but are there any ideas or actions that can be considered no-go?
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 2:01 PM
If the 'teachings' of Jesus are 'the parts of the bible we should consider important', are you suggesting that the old testament should be taken out of the bible to make it more 'real christian'? just throw the whole thing out and think for yourself!
Works for me. It also seems to work for the most intelligent Christians I've known, because that's exactly what they've tended to do.
Spin it however you like, it still comes up radical.
No, actually, it doesn't. Plenty of people, of nearly all ideological stripes -- including both libertarians and evangelical Christians, I might add -- have acknowledged that gross inequality of wealth leads to greater injustice, and redistribution of wealth, aimed at narrowing the gap between the richest and poorest of a country, is an important tool for restoring justice. And no, Obama did NOT say courts could or should help with that; he explicitly acknowledged that courts did NOT do that sort of thing, and that because "because the civil rights movement became so court focused," they neglected other avenues that could have helped in that area.
You're really desperate to trash Obama, aren't you? What did he do to you to merit such false witness as you have borne against him?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 2:03 PM
The religious right (RR) should be grateful that everyone else doesn't live up to the violent extremes they seem to envision and fantasize about. Else, given the number of people that are not part of the RR, the RR would be exterminated faster than you can say pogrom. In turn, we should be grateful that their numbers are so low that the most that they usually can accomplish is to scream like two-year-olds throwing a beet-faced tantrum.
Posted by: c-serpent | October 27, 2008 2:25 PM
Kurt,
Come on up north. What's one more lawyer when we already have a plethora? I've got an unsold house you can stay in 'til you get yourself going.
Just bring a warm coat as you enjoy our state's new motto--Michigan, the third coast!
Posted by: James Hanley | October 27, 2008 2:27 PM
Yes but where would the "(dis)United States of Wingnuttery" [DUSW] be located?
Still think I could persuade the Nauruans to sell, if the price was right (as in every cent the Wing-nuts have). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 27, 2008 2:34 PM
Didn't they learn their lesson the last time this was tried? Rural agrarian conservatives vs. industrial progressives?
They can pray for victory while death rains down from orbiting death beam satellites enabled by the evils of secular science.
I kid. Really. Ok. Not really.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | October 27, 2008 2:36 PM
Phaedrus stated:
I would argue Obama's support for the FISA amendment should be a sub-set of your criteria. I've never agreed with anyone across the board on important constitutional matters and think that's a test all would fail.
For me, related to your example, defense of the Constitution and its inherent ideals and principles is one of my most important go/no-go factors, right up there with general intelligence and integrity. My consideration is a more general expansive consideration of the candidates rather than looking at one case.
When McCain entered the primaries originally claiming he was going to nominate Dobson-friendly (approved?) justices and initially used Justice Clarence Thomas as one example, I immediately started learning heavily towards Hillary Clinton or Obama even though I was a Republican. In McCain's partial defense, he now uses Roberts and Alito as examples; I find Alito nearly equally dangerous to Thomas given that he appears to be stridently prejudicial to non-conservative people and groups.
In this election we have two choices assuming two to three appointments replacing Stevens, Ginsburg and possibly Souter:, a middle-right court will swing heavily to the right if McCain wins and a Dem-majority Senate approves his nominations or the court stays middle-right given the two to three projected retirees are all liberal (Stevens, Ginsburg) or middle-right (Souter), where Stevens used to be considered centrist until the court swung so far to the right.
I find a Palin presidency scary. I find a Palin presidency coupled with a Scalia/Thomas ideologically led court worthy of moving pronto to the Southern Hemisphere. Having stated that, I think that's an outlier outcome even if McCain won because Palin would have to take over for McCain which is a less than 30% outcome (she's unelectable) and a Dem-majority Senate would have to confirm three wackaloons Palin would be sure to nominate based on her past rhetoric. Assuming Dems will grow hair on their balls to not confirm McCain/Palin nominesss is something I don't believe anyone should bet on, so this factor alone has me heavily favoring Obama though Obama also destroys McCain on all my other go/no-go factors where the remainder contain zero issues, instead are all personal attributes (e.g., intelligence, emotional intelligence, honesty/integrity, love of process, transparency, executive skills).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 3:13 PM
So.... that's a no?
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 3:17 PM
[Sigh] I remember the 70's when the split was more on the lines of the "real America" and Ecotopia.
Posted by: natural cynic | October 27, 2008 3:17 PM
Adding to what Michael says, It strikes me that McCain would be Stephen Colbert's ideal President -- someone who governs from the gut as opposed to the brain (after all, the gut does have more nerve endings than the brain).
And given his self-admitted lack of interest in economic policy, it strikes me that a McCain administration would be a toxic mix of neglectful disinterest of domestic policy coupled with an erratic attitude, tending to bravado, on foreign policy.
He won't be Bush, but is that any better?
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 3:26 PM
Regarding real libertarians -- I always thought that they had to compromise somewhere if they were going to vote for one of the major parties. If they voted for the Democrats they got a more libertarian viewpoint on social issues at the expense of economic issues. Voting Republican it was supposed to be the other way around, except... after eight years of Republican rule, they got nothing at all.
So while libertarians are never going to agree with the Dems on economic policies, at least they will get something for their troubles whereas the Republicans are giving them nothing to vote for these days.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 3:31 PM
So what's the check to keep us from progressively voting ourselves off a cliff? Can we rationalize support for a candidate with any views at all, no matter how unconscionable, as long as the other candidate is worse? Is there any tripwire that would cause us to vote for neither a Democrat nor a Republican?
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 3:36 PM
Phaedrus - It's a yes at the start of every election campaign season given I'm an eternal optimist, the standard quickly devolves to a no given all candidates eventually fail my test. It got to a no in the first debate when Obama mischaracterized McCain's voting record (though McCain out-lied Obama by a ratio of a 3:1 in that debate).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 3:44 PM
Phaedrus - why not tell us you which presidential candidates you voted for in the past and why to bring more context to your very important but also abstract questions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 3:55 PM
:)
I sympathize. I voted for Gore then Kerry, though I don't see why that matters. I've just gotten very disenchanted with Democrats as some sort of answer to the Republicans. What have they really accomplished in the last two years that differentiates them from Republicans? They've made some sounds towards stopping the war, torture, etc., but when the chips are down they always fold or are ineffective.
I see myself being used as a pawn in a game that I never win. Just like the right will never "solve" abortion or gay issues (if they can help it) because it would remove the impetus of much of its base, I feel the left gives lip service to basic ideals like rule of law and privacy, long enough to get our vote. They realize how useful NOT having these things will be when their in power, and they know who their friends are (and it ain't us).
It really rankles me that many people find a vote for Obama or the Democrats as a "good" thing, instead of a necessary evil.
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 4:07 PM
Dear Red States,
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware,that includes Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota,Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and all of the Northeastern states. After this election, we'll be adding Colorado and New Mexico.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, especially to the people of our new country - Nuevo California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell research, the best beaches, and the best ski resorts. We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft; you get WorldCom. We get Stanford, Harvard,Princeton, Yale, Cal Tech, MIT and Columbia; you get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red
states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than that of the Christian Coalition, we get a bunch of happy families and you get a bunch of under-educated single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we'll need all of our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They apparently have kids they're willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't mind if you don't televise their kid's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq and hope that those Weapons of Mass Destruction turn up for you, but we're not willing to spend any more of our money in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States, we will control 80 percent of the country's fresh water, 90 percent of pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 97 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at your state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, and all the Ivy
League an d Seven Sister schools. We also get New England, the Great Lakes and Yosemite, thank you very much.
In the Red States, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, 100 percent of tornadoes, 94 percent of hurricanes, 99 percent of Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, and Clemson. .
Additionally, in the Red States, 38 percent actually believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale; 62 percent believe life is sacred unless it involves the death penalty or gun ownership; 44 percent claim that evolution is only a theory; 53 percent insist that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you have higher moral standards than those of us on the left.
By the way, we're taking all the good pot, too. You get that dirt weed from Mexico and Kansas ditches.
Peace out,
The Blue States
Posted by: WBPNYC | October 27, 2008 4:08 PM
Can we rationalize support for a candidate with any views at all, no matter how unconscionable, as long as the other candidate is worse?
Of course we can: incremenmtal progress is better than none at all. And as for FISA, I'd rather have a President who opposed it inconsistently, than one who supports it consistently. Obama did try to get the worst bits of FISA removed, and only voted for it after all attempts at compromise failed. Nothing to brag about, to be sure, but no reason to do anything remotely likely to help McSame/Flailin win, either. I, for one, am voting for Obama, with no hesitation or regret, even if he turns out to be another Jimmy Carter; and I urge all of you to do the same. If you actually LOOKED at Bob Barr's and Ron Paul's track records -- instead of blindly romanticizing them just because they're an "alternative" -- you'd find plenty to make Obama look good by comparison.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 4:17 PM
I've just gotten very disenchanted with Democrats as some sort of answer to the Republicans. What have they really accomplished in the last two years that differentiates them from Republicans?
Has anyone else accomplished more than the Democrats recently?
I see myself being used as a pawn in a game that I never win.
And what would you win by voting for a third-party asshat whose past track record you've shown no willingness to examine honestly? What did the Florida Naderites win for us, or themselves, in 2000?
I feel the left gives lip service to basic ideals like rule of law and privacy, long enough to get our vote.
And have the libertarians been any more sincere in their alleged devotion to the same ideals? Of course not -- they pretend to criticize the Republicans, then cling to their trouser-legs anyway, and cling just as mindlessly to their unchanging creed of "liberal=socialist=Stalinist=Nazi." (Notice how both Barr and Paul are part-time REPUBCLICANS?)
It really rankles me that many people find a vote for Obama or the Democrats as a "good" thing, instead of a necessary evil.
It rankles you that Obama has proven himself to be a decent man with good intentions? It rankles you that we don't hate Obama as much as you do? What, exactly, makes him "evil?" Or do you call everyone who disagrees with you "evil?"
WBPNYC: Thanks, that was great!
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 4:30 PM
where's our guarantee that a candidate who's merely not as bad as the other guy, won't still be monotonically ever worse than the previous guy? that'd not be "progress", yet i see no reason why you wouldn't vote for him, given the logic you outline.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | October 27, 2008 4:33 PM
Phaedrus said:
"I voted for Gore then Kerry, though I don't see why that matters. I've just gotten very disenchanted with Democrats as some sort of answer to the Republicans. What have they really accomplished in the last two years that differentiates them from Republicans? They've made some sounds towards stopping the war, torture, etc., but when the chips are down they always fold or are ineffective."
I feel the same way.
But then I think that they just never had the votes to do anything anyway, what with the Blue Dogs and a lack of an iron-fisted leadership.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 27, 2008 4:33 PM
Yeah, see, I've had long discussions with idiots like Raging Bee. Rah, Rah Obama and all that - the Left's answer to the "America's #1" Republicans.
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 4:33 PM
Raging Bee - great response except your assumption those voting for Barr or Paul are voting for the person rather than the party or ideology. While Barr and Paul are its faces, they certainly are not representative of younger aspects of that party.
It is my understanding that those voting Libertarian are doing so while holding their nose to Barr knowing he has no chance of winning. Seeing the Libertarian party consistently grow its vote count and hopefully one day become a viable third party seems to be a most excellent objective for all of us. Especially since conservatives have taken over the GOP, creating a window of opportunity for Libertarians to attract moderate Republicans.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Farah is just having a snit of the "I'm losing so I'll take my marbles and go home!" variety. People will find that things haven't changed that much the next day. The rule of law might be better enforced when it comes to habeas corpus and other basic principles that George W. Bush tossed out with the bath water. Canada will still get shafted in CO2 credits no matter who wins. The first worry is vote fraud -- please take exit polls seriously and investigate if results are much different from the polls. The second is terrorism, which you've had since John Wilkes Booth was an unreconciled secessionist.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 27, 2008 4:51 PM
Heh - did everyone see that the photohome.com">Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama? I wonder what kind of revenge Palin will think up for them. I guess they can kiss the Governor's advertising budget goodbye, for starters. Maybe her husband the secessionist -- speaking of palling around with traitors -- will start a newspaper.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 27, 2008 4:55 PM
Heh - did everyone see that the ">Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama? I wonder what kind of revenge Palin will think up for them. I guess they can kiss the Governor's advertising budget goodbye, for starters. Maybe her husband the secessionist -- speaking of paling around with traitors -- will start a newspaper.
Sorry for repeat post! Wrong link.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 27, 2008 4:57 PM
I don't see this as a bad thing at all, in general terms. If you can't form a political power bloc, you just won't get things done. At all. Moreover, anything that encourages diversity in the political landscape is a good thing.
That said, this particular option isn't for me (nor am are some of the other candidate options). Too many operational differences, bringing theory into practice, etc. for me. Change my mind when I can see it done in practice in a real setting...might have some solid ways to evaluate the candidates then, but as it is...and for me...the alternative candidates aren't an option.
Posted by: gwangung | October 27, 2008 5:05 PM
Phaedrus - yes, there IS a limit. I hit that point today, voting early, when considering my choices for U.S. Representative between Rick Goddard and Jim Marshall. Goddard's support for massive increases in oil drilling, the Bush tax cuts, our current policy in Iraq, and so forth shows me he is a standard Republican. His support from Boehner and his sucky, uninformative web page were added data against him.
So I looked at the Democrat, Jim Marshall. He's anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-flag burning amendment. And he is advertising his accolades from Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. (Yes, he IS claiming to be a Democrat - I had to double-check.) His web page sucks, too.
There was no Libertarian or other third-party candidate on the ballot. I voted "write-in" and put in my mother's name - she needs a better job, anyway.
Posted by: BobApril | October 27, 2008 5:24 PM
where's our guarantee that a candidate who's merely not as bad as the other guy, won't still be monotonically ever worse than the previous guy?
There's no such guarantee. We vote for the best candidate with the information we have regarding their proposals, promises, past track records, and a reasoned assessment of their character and that of their crucial supporters. You got anything better to go on?
While Barr and Paul are its faces, they certainly are not representative of younger aspects of that party.
If they don't represent the "younger aspects" of the party and movement, then what good are they? Why should I give them a chance to pretend they represent me?
It is my understanding that those voting Libertarian are doing so while holding their nose to Barr knowing he has no chance of winning.
So they have to hold their noses to vote for the guy, knowing the only justification is "he has no chance of winning?" That's downright pathetic -- and the same rationale can be used to justify voting for Lyndon LaRouche or a Neo-Nazi. At least I don't have to hold my nose to vote for Obama.
Seeing the Libertarian party consistently grow its vote count and hopefully one day become a viable third party seems to be a most excellent objective for all of us.
If they want to "grow their vote count," they can do so by making their platform relevant to ordinary voters, and by running more people for state and local offices where they can show their stuff in the real world. If they won't take the trouble to do that, then they don't deserve any votes. What's the point of letting a party "grow its vote count" without FIRST expecting it to earn the votes?
Especially since conservatives have taken over the GOP, creating a window of opportunity for Libertarians to attract moderate Republicans.
The libertarians have had that opportunity since 1980, at least, and what have they done with it? Those losers were so busy demonizing liberals and pandering to back-country wackaloons, they had no time left for the rest of America. As a result, they have NOTHING to offer us; fuck 'em. You can throw your vote away for an idiot, and pretend it makes you a contrarian, or a free-thinker, or special, or whatever; or you can vote for Obama and actually help your country ACCOMPLISH something decent.
...Rah, Rah Obama and all that...
Tell me, Phaedrus, are you always so hateful and disdainful toward everyone who expresses respect for the decency or accomplishments of someone else? And what has that attitude got you lately?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 27, 2008 5:30 PM
BobApril - I feel for you. I've had a few of those as well though I'm not sure they were that bad. My Democratic Congressman is also anti-abortion rights but he's at least pro-science, including stem cell research and a very competent legislator. (Bart Stupak - MI's 1st District).
I thought all the boll weevil Dems left for the GOP, but then when I think Georgia Dems, Zell Miller comes to mind so maybe the argument about splitting the country isn't so crazy.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 5:34 PM
Just out of curiosity as an outsider, I ask: is this at all feasible or strictly a joke? I only heard of the independent Alaska movement when Palin turned up, but the Jesusland and give back the South jokes have been around for a while.
Is it totally whacko, or not? The USSR split up; several eastern European states have split; even Britain and Canada have separatist movements. Could the US do it?
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 27, 2008 7:09 PM
Yeah, Bob. When Reid pulled that crap with the FISA thing, not respecting Dodd's hold, etc. that was pretty much my tipping point for Dems in general. I mean, Reid did everything possible to make sure that immunity was passed. And Obama (and the rest of the Senate) did nothing, there was no outrage. These guys have proven they are Dems first and Americans second. And Obama, promising to filibuster immunity, but then supporting it - not voting against, but supporting! At this point I don't see a big difference, long term, between the Dems and the Reps. Short term, Obama is better than McCain, but his actions show that this difference is simply one of degree, not kind.
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 27, 2008 7:32 PM
heddle wrote:
Heddle needs to either take a con law or a civil rights course. He'd find that this is a pretty standard interpretation. The fact is that the SupCourt didn't go into the social justice issues, and the leaders of the Civil Rights movememt did shift focus from grass roots organizing to legal battles (more easily won, after the early 1950s). And from the transcript, Obama is just stating this as fact--he makes no statements that suggest the Court should have done differently. heddle appears to be assuming a tone of regret that isn't obviously there.heddle's putting the spin on it, and finding an improbable, but most damaging interpetation.
heddle is right about one thing, this election sucks for us libertarians. Even our libertarian candidate is revolting.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 27, 2008 7:48 PM
To Cath the Canberra Cook,
It's all just a joke. Well, Farah may not be joking at the moment, but he's a joke, so it works out the same.
There is absolutely no measurable support for splitting the U.S. The reality is, that we don't really have such blue and red states as people think. If you look not just at this election, but historical presidential elections, you'll see that very few states are totally dominated by one party. What we call an overwhelming victory for a presidential candidate in one state is on the order of 55% or more. Even our most red/blue states tend to have well over a third of their people voting the other way. So we don't really have sectional politics these days (conflict between different geographic sections, as we did leading up to and in in our civil war) as intrasectional politics--conflict within each section. So there'd be no clear dividing lines upon which to split us, even if there really was actual support for such an idea, which there isn't.
Not that I would obejct to letting Texas become an independent republic once again, and letting them take the other gulf states with them.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 27, 2008 8:16 PM
Cath the cook stated:
It's all rhetoric by all of us given the current political players and make-up of the current Supreme Court.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I've got a pretty good grasp of the principle in play here. The Federal Constitution obligates the Federal Government to defend the rights of its people individually, though not explicitly - this principle is based on interpretations of previous court rulings and the Supreme Court can always overturn such precedents.
Even if a majority or super-majority of a state wanted to secede from the U.S., a citizen within that state that objected to secession fearing his state would deprive him of his rights would obligate the Feds to defend their rights. That reserved right also does not require he move to access his right (another precedent that protects these rights within the jurisdiction of the U.S.).
It's the same concept that had President Eisenhower sending in the military in the 1950s to force the state of Arkansas to adhere to a federal court ruling that two(?) African-American girls could attend a public school that had previously prohibited them from attending based on their race. This display of federal power was controversial at the time and given the current make-up of the Republican party being primarily social conservatives - wrong according to their philosophy (not they'd say it regarding racial equality, but they make the argument now for gay rights and some other issues).
There are some people, including me, that fear that a couple more Supreme Court Justices in the vein of Clarence Thomas and a President like Sarah Palin (whose husband was a secessionist) could very well rule in act and rule in a way that American's individual rights can be violated based on their skewed philosophy of "states' rights". So we must always be vigilant.
BTW Cath - went to your website - gorgeous slice of pie!
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 8:32 PM
James - nice post. I think we ham and egged that one pretty well!
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 8:41 PM
I have no problems with them getting north and south Dakotas. But we first we have to remove the ICBM silos. It wouldn't due to have Apocalypse-ready Xians, or any other religious fanatics, to have WMDs. We also can't have any nuclear or biological materials or research centers in those states. Better remove all the universities. What between the necessary prohibitions on dangerous nuclear, biological and nuclear training or research and their internal creationist beliefs crippling their biology and genetics research we might as well just remove all the universities and any education past sixth grade.
It will be an interesting place. Religion everywhere and tightly enforced. Failure to follow the biblical rules mean you get stoned. And not in the good way.
Men will have to wear beards. Everyone will have to dress modestly. Men as owners of women. Every man will have an automatic weapon on his back to keep the NRA happy. Stoning gays as entertainment. A priest/judge class, let's call them imams. Enforced prayer. No high finance because the Bible proclaims every seventh year as Jubilee.
Let's see. A country run by priests. People wearing robes. All adult males have an automatic weapon. Women are second class citizens. Low average education. Hostility to higher learning if it isn't religious based. The government run under the rules of an ancient religious text.
this is starting to sound like Afghanistan without the mountains history and charm?
Posted by: Art | October 27, 2008 9:19 PM
James Hanley, why should you even bother voting? Since you only have one vote, it doesn't make any sense to waste it on a politician.
Posted by: daniel | October 27, 2008 9:28 PM
"we don't really have such blue and red states"
And in any event, county level voting maps suggest (to me, anyway) that the red-blue divide actually tends to be urban/non-urban. Eg, if VA were to secede from the union, the northern VA DC exurbs would probably want to secede from secessionist VA. And even in TX, the big cities might want the same. I was recently visiting in Ft Worth, and the op ed page was if anything more leftish than the NYT's.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | October 27, 2008 10:13 PM
OK, so we split America up. That means we (Blue America) get Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Seattle's tech sector (Microsoft and Boeing); we get the New York banking, advertising, and publishing industries; we get the Chicago mercantile exchanges; the biotech and high tech industries in Boston; we may even (by her standards) end up with the Houston oil industries (Houston is bluer than you might think). And Cubans aside, we would likely get South Florida too. And Hawaii.
So how exactly will Red America pay for its roads? Its electrical lines? Its telecommunications infrastructure? Its schools? Cause those "evil liberals" are the only ones keeping our economy (barely) afloat. And we are paying the lions share of taxes, despite what all the rednecks might think. After the croplands are depleted from over-use, Red America couldn't do much more than strip mine itself into oblivion.
Posted by: eugene_X | October 27, 2008 10:28 PM
James & Michael: thank you.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 27, 2008 10:35 PM
The Fort Worth Star Telegram Editorial Board, circulation 207,000, recommended Obama for President. They had recommended Bush in 2004, and Clinton in 1992 over TX's own Bush 41.
Their core argument for Obama was a combination that this is a pivotal time comparative to 1932, 1960, 1980, and 1992 where one should look at the candidate whose qualities best meet the challenges of the time.
They also gagged on Palin.
I would argue that 2004 was the pivotal time and American voters failed their country miserably by allowing our current President to remain in office. This is an obvious time where McCain made it obvious when he selected Palin.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 10:44 PM
Ah forget Nauru then, split Texas into five states, keep at least one, and give the rednecks the remains. That would work, and it would be allowed (technically).
West Texas for the Rednecks! Any objections? -DJ
"If I owned hell and Texas, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell".
Posted by: DingoJack | October 27, 2008 11:39 PM
Blue Nine: Have you ever read the blog Orcinus? They go into great detail about the right wing movement and the process of escape from it. The right isn't hopeless; just beleaguered by their own fear-induced self-tyranny.
Posted by: Julian | October 27, 2008 11:44 PM
By the way, we're taking all the good pot, too. You get that dirt weed from Mexico and Kansas ditches.
Ouch. Low blow.
But then I'm a non-smoker in likely-to-be-decriminalized Massachusetts, the very first state Farah would be likely to kick out should he have the power to do so...
Posted by: Brian X | October 28, 2008 12:50 AM
Daniel wrote
Well, I can't waste that vote on anything else, so I might as well let a politician have it. But given how anti-libertarian these candidates are--even the libertarian candidate, in my view--if I could waste my vote on something else, like a ham and cheese sandwich, I probably would. And I may in fact not cast a presidential ballot this year.Or perhaps I'll transfer my vote for consideration. Since some people here still believe each vote is crucial, it ought to be worth something to one of you. (Please note: the buying and selling of presidential votes is illegal; but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 28, 2008 7:09 AM
To further throw water on heddle's notion that Obama was promoting a radical notion in the 2001 interview, here is a 10/3/08 interview between Obama and the Detroit Free Press where Obama names the two justices he finds most appropriate in this era: http://www.freep.com/article/20081003/OPINION01/810030434/1069/OPINION01
What is noteworthy to me about him naming Souter and Breyer is that both were among the least likely to vote to overturn laws during the Rehnquist Court. In fact Souter was sixth and Breyer ninth.
My observation comes from a Yale Study looking to quantify the charges of "judicial activism" where they measured the preponderance of a justice's willingness to overturn legislation as activism (a controversial, though quantifiable definition).
Here are the rankings (the percentage represents the number of times a justice voted to overturn a law overturning relative to what I believe was the number of times a law was a challenge posed to the court - if memory serves me, this is a couple of year old publication and I didn't re-read it prior to posting, see link below to verify):
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Here is one source for the Yale Study: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090
Breyer's book, "Active Liberty", promotes a special kind of judicial modesty. Breyer encourages people to buck up and get their rights protected with our laws given it will carry more societal weight and possess more political capital than a mere judicial fiat.
This Breyer thesis further corroborates the explanation Orin Kerr provided on Obama's 2001 statement, not that Obama couldn't say two different things on a topic seven years apart. However I do believe it puts the onus on the tinfoil hat theorist to buttress their interpretation further.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2008 8:03 AM
Michael Heath: "Even if a majority or super-majority of a state wanted to secede from the U.S., a citizen within that state that objected to secession fearing his state would deprive him of his rights would obligate the Feds to defend their rights."
I believe some Quebec sovereigntists have suggested that they'd aim for a dual-citizenship with Canada; Quebec residents would be citizens of both Quebec and Canada. (The rest of Canada might not agree to that, of course.)
Would a similar approach prevent minority citizens objecting to a state's secession? If the state's residents kept their US citizenship, objectors may not be deprived of any rights.
Posted by: amk | October 28, 2008 9:56 AM
Just for the record, I'll note that I'm in favor of allowing secession. I see nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, and I see little value in forcibly keeping company with those who would prefer to secede.
And with real free trade and open borders, it would hardly matter.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 28, 2008 10:00 AM
James stated:
If a state majority/super-majority has an implied power to secede; than doesn't that infer that states can deprive its citizens of their individual rights and the Federal government has no authority to defend those individual rights?
My question assumes you will never get 100% of a state's people to agree to secession. Where "people" includes non-voters since they have rights as well. I would assume dissenters would fear their seceded state would not protect the rights they enjoy protection for under the U.S. Constitution, like religious freedom.
Also, how do you square a state having an implied power to secede given the 14th amendment? Again assuming you'll never reach a 100% consensus.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2008 10:17 AM
Michael,
I don't think secession necessarily deprives citizens of individual rights. I don't have a right as an individual to have all public policies go my way.
And the 14th Amendment's real hurdle is the dual citizenship clause. But that applies to any state that is a state--presumably if a state seceded, dual citizenship would cease also. If a supermajority of a state was willing to forgo U.S. citizenship, I'd say that's the choice of that state's public.
As a practical matter, I'd urge the U.S. government to allow a grace period of unrestricted immigration from the former state/s, so that those who didn't want to forgo U.S. citizenship can still retain it. I think as a constitutional matter you'd probably have to allow that, at least during the time period between such a vote and the date it takes effect. But as noted, I believe in open borders anyway.
I'm fully aware this is a fringe view. But I stake my argument on the fact that when the Constitution was written, the states had free choice whether to ratify it and join, or refuse and not join. In fact North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join the new union until after the new government was already operational--a clear sign that they could have remained independent had they chosen to. That, coupled with the absence of any clause clearly implying the choice is irrevocable, along with the general principle that all voluntary agreements are revocable (we permit people to dissolve marriages, businesses, their allegiance to Massachusetts in favor of New York, etc.), leads me to conclude that states retain the right to secede.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 28, 2008 11:13 AM
Interesting argument James. A couple of observations:
While I forgot the case, there is a precedent that Americans do not have to move to enjoy their rights. Their rights are protected within the U.S. and a few other exceptions. I acknowledge this is a minor point in the overall scheme of your idea.
Second - Your state ratification argument gets into the notion of sovereignity, the legitimacy of government power if people truly have individual liberty rights, along with the legitimacy of the Constitution's delegating power to gov't relative to living modern-day Americans (we didn't ratify, why do you have to live under it?). I highly recommend getting Randy Barnett's thesis which covers both these issues and many more. The latter is required reading for libertarians in my opinion. Barnett is a liberal originalist who favors textualism.
Here is the relevant book: http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Lost-Constitution-Presumption-Liberty/dp/0691123764/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225213965&sr=8-1
It also happens to be the book that has most influenced my thinking on constitutional matters. Ed is also a big fan of Barnett. (He argued Raich by the way.).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2008 1:19 PM
Michael,
Yes, Barnett is always good reading.
I would add that the method of ratification of the Constitution unfortunately provides arguments for both sides. On the side of "the people ratified it, so it's an inviolable union" is the fact that it was ratified by state ratifying conventions, instead of by the state legislatures (as required by Article VII). On the side of "the states joined as states, and so have the sovereign authority to withdraw" is that the state legislatures chose whether to allow the conventions to take place or not.
As to the general question of the legitimacy of government power vs. individual rights, there's a reason I ensure all my students learn that the irreducible foundation of government is force. But I'm sure I've beaten the "force is illegitimate" horse often enough to be fairly transparent now.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 28, 2008 1:56 PM
I'm all for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Funny, though, the Bible isn't mentioned anywhere in either of those documents, nor are there any serious ideas found in either the Declaration or the Constitution that are also found in the Bible.
Aside from the mention of the "Creator" and that he gave us all our unalienable rights, of course. Oh, and don't forget that the Founders entrusted themselves and the nation to said Creator at the end of the Declaration.
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 2:28 PM
mroberts: Aside from the mention of the "Creator" and that he gave us all our unalienable rights, of course.
Creator = Bible?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Creator = Bible?
What creator were they talking about, chiroptera?
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 2:40 PM
Good question. The Creator isn't referred to as a "he". I'm just as entitled to read it as being one's mother, as you are to assume that it's Yahweh.
Posted by: Jon Siminovitch | October 28, 2008 2:50 PM
Good question. The Creator isn't referred to as a "he". I'm just as entitled to read it as being one's mother, as you are to assume that it's Yahweh.
Yeah, as if what you think it means actually MATTERS. What did the Founders think it meant? Nobody is entitled to read it in any other way than what was meant by the people who wrote it.
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 2:52 PM
mroberts: What creator were they talking about, chiroptera?
The question before us is how influential the Bible (as contemporary Christian literalists interpret it) was in the philosophies of the founders of the U.S. That the founders appeared to believe in a creator, or that the Christian Bible contained an imperfect account of this creator isn't really in dispute -- what is in dispute are the allegations that this country was founded on contemporary evangelical Christian principles.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
What did the Founders think it meant, indeed? Certainly they were not all of the same mind on the nature of their Creator. You're still the one who assigned gender where none was implied.
Posted by: Jon Siminovitch | October 28, 2008 2:58 PM
Well, Jefferson who actually wrote that phrase, and Franklin and Adams who approved the draft though Franklin took the word "sacred" and replaced with self-evident, all referred to God not as the trinitarian god of orthodox Christianity, but instead was nature's God who could best be known through reason and not through divine revelation (e.g., complete dependence on the Bible). That'd be that God for those men.
That accurate understanding of God even matches Einstein's god and I'm sure some founders assumed it was their version of God.
One can't extend the god of the DofI to our being forced to subscribe to a Biblical god whose laws supersede those of free men living under our Constitution.
High School mroberts? Did you graduate from High School? Did you pass your civics class?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2008 3:04 PM
The question before us is how influential the Bible (as contemporary Christian literalists interpret it) was in the philosophies of the founders of the U.S. That the founders appeared to believe in a creator, or that the Christian Bible contained an imperfect account of this creator isn't really in dispute -- what is in dispute are the allegations that this country was founded on contemporary evangelical Christian principles.
No, all I am asking is who did the Founders believe "Creator" or "Divine Providence" to be?
What did the Founders think it meant, indeed? Certainly they were not all of the same mind on the nature of their Creator. You're still the one who assigned gender where none was implied.
There were of enough of the same mind to sign their names on the document. So who was "Creator"?
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 3:05 PM
Well Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were the ones who wrote the Declaration and they pretty clearly stated they believed all good men of most or all world religions worshipped the same "Providence." They explicitly included Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and unconverted Native Americans as worshippers of the "Providence" of the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | October 28, 2008 3:08 PM
"There were of enough of the same mind to sign their names on the document. So who was "Creator"?"
An imaginary character. This character's attributes differed from person to person.
Posted by: Jon Siminovitch | October 28, 2008 3:13 PM
Mroberts: The god they were referring to was a bare-bones deity of total beneficence; basically a personification of goodness and justice. When men of the Colonial to Victorian periods called someone a "christian man" what they meant it common parlance was a "good man". To people like Adams, christian did not denote dedication to a set of ideology but to a specific moral approach to life which included civility, temperance, compassion, civic involvement, fair dealing, fair treatment of those within your authority, tolerance, forgiveness, and a general respect for the humanity of all other people. In fact, some cursory research on the subject would reveal to you that many of the founders thought the more bloody-minded tracts of the bible to be highly objectionable. Today, you might call this humanism.
The fact that the founding fathers used language such as "The Creator" (an idea which, btw, as been in the Indo-European lexicon since before our language group came to Europe) in public documents and "christian" in private letters says more about the intellectual environment they were working with during the Enlightenment than it does about the content of their statements or the meaning of their documents. When you broadcast your modern politicized meanings for those terms into their statements, you are the one denying original intent.
Posted by: Julian | October 28, 2008 3:13 PM
Well, Jefferson who actually wrote that phrase, and Franklin and Adams who approved the draft though Franklin took the word "sacred" and replaced with self-evident, all referred to God not as the trinitarian god of orthodox Christianity, but instead was nature's God who could best be known through reason and not through divine revelation (e.g., complete dependence on the Bible). That'd be that God for those men.
Wow, that sure makes a lot of sense Heath. All three of them have a proven history of close association with and/or belief in Christianity, were raised in a society predominantly Christian, yet the deity they include in the Declaration is not the Christian God? Yup, makes tons of sense.
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 3:16 PM
Mroberts: Think of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams as "Christians" in the Obama sense. As Adams put it:
"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world."
John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818
Posted by: Jon Rowe | October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
What did the Founders think it meant?
They probably thought it meant whoever or whatever created the Universe and controlled the fates of all humans, whether or not they themselves fully understood, or agreed about, his/her/its/their exact nature and intent. The language was pretty generic, and they never tried to impose one interpretation on their countrymen; so we really can't say they had any one particular "Creator" in mind. Sort of like someone praying to "whoever's out there."
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 28, 2008 3:39 PM
mroberts, apparently oblivious to the volumes of research and writing I've done on this issue, says:
We are speaking here of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams. Franklin wrote in his own autobiography about his deconversion from his Calvinistic Christian upbringing and his embrace of deism as a younger man (though I think "theistic rationalist" is a more accurate term for the beliefs he had for much of his adult life).
Jefferson rejected the Biblical God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust" and argued strongly that Jesus was not only not divine, but that he never claimed to be divine and that the apostles lied when they said he had. Clearly this cannot be the Christian conception of God, where Jesus and God are two parts of the trinity (a concept he called "metaphysical insanity").
Adams, we know from a long series of letters, agreed with Jefferson almost entirely, though he liked to use the word Christianity to mean any belief in any God (he even remarked that Hinduism was as orthodox to him as Christianity was).
If any of those three told you their actual beliefs about God, you would certainly not recognize those beliefs as Christian.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 28, 2008 3:39 PM
mroberts - you make arguments from ignorance. Go read some books. I'm not going to educate you.
Everything I stated is factually true. Unlike you, they had a nuanced view of Christianity, the Bible, and both's relationship to nature.
The things all three said about Christianity would guarantee they'd never win an election in today's political climate. All three also assimilated many of Christianity's finest attributes.
What's most important today is that all three worked to insure ratification of our secular Constitution that protects our freedom of conscience rights. So your's or anyone's interpretation of any ancient so-called sacred text can't usurp my rights.
Jefferson even re-wrote the NT, taking out the miracles and claims of a resurrected Christ. I guess under your definition on the other thread of a "true Christian", none of these guys meet your test of "true" Christian given their willingness to discard with large swaths of some of Christianity's most important claims (resurrected Christ for example). Which means you couldn't have voted for any of them given your litmus test in the other thread (if you were in position to do even vote given they didn't hold popular elections then, you'd have to have been a state legislator).
You know, Ed's gone over this stuff on this thread a ton of times. I am surprised a regular reader of his is making these sorts of claims.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2008 3:40 PM
Jon Rowe: Think of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams as "Christians" in the Obama sense.
What's funny is that on a different thread, mroberts denies Obama is a Christian even though he's far more of a traditional, orthodox Christian than this nation's founders were.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 28, 2008 3:44 PM
What do you think of this mroberts?
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 28, 2008 3:45 PM
They probably thought it meant whoever or whatever created the Universe and controlled the fates of all humans, whether or not they themselves fully understood, or agreed about, his/her/its/their exact nature and intent. The language was pretty generic, and they never tried to impose one interpretation on their countrymen; so we really can't say they had any one particular "Creator" in mind. Sort of like someone praying to "whoever's out there."
Guys, this just doesn't make sense. A "whoever's out there deity" is the Creator of the Declaration? Honestly? Our Founders honestly appealed to the divine standard of an unknown deity to justify what their king would view as treason? They listed in the Declaration specific rights that come from this unknown God, specific violations of their unalienable rights by their king, and at the end entrusted the care of themselves and the nation to this unknowable God. All these specifics about this God's moral standard makes me think that the Founders believed they knew who this God was.
Posted by: mroberts | October 28, 2008 3:53 PM
mroberts: They listed in the Declaration specific rights that come from this unknown God, specific violations of their unalienable rights by their king, and at the end entrusted the care of themselves and the nation to this unknowable God.
Well, that certainly leaves out the Bible as a source, then, since the Bible doesn't mention these specific rights.
-
Guys, this just doesn't make sense.
It's not our fault. They wrote what they wrote. You can ignore what they wrote about their beliefs if you want.
-
All these specifics about this God's moral standard makes me think that the Founders believed they knew who this God was.
Well, you can think that the founders didn't have any belief in any god and just wrote those phrases for political expediency. I doubt that would "make sense" any more or any less than the belief you are maintaining here.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
The Founders God was knowable chiefly through "reason." And they appealed to the God of Nature, not the God of revelation because what King George III did, didn't violate scripture but natural right.
Or if you want to take the cynical approach here is what Lino Graglia had to say:
"What [tje DOI] is, of course, is a document meant to justify revolution -- that is, illegal action. Having no human law to rely on -- being in defiance of authority -- revolutionaries necessarily come to rely on the law of God, who, happily, rarely issues a protest."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
Our Founders honestly appealed to the divine standard of an unknown deity to justify what their king would view as treason?
First, from a theist's point of view (or even an agnostic's) that makes more sense that NOT appealing to an unknown God. And second, any Christian with an ounce of grey matter will freely admit that the Creator of Heaven and Earth is beyond the understanding of us mortals; no matter how much time you spend styding the Bible and all other beliefs, you're still a human and God is still God -- huge, complex, infinite, and unknowable to humans save in little bits and snippets. The OT says, "none shall look upon me and live," remember? I don't see why you're suddenly having such trouble with this concept, since Christians have been freely admitting it for centuries.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 28, 2008 4:05 PM
mroberts, the founders were well aware of Christianity and they were quite smart. Surely, if they'd wanted it mentioned, they would have?
Read through the Federalist Papers (the articles written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay in order to convince the states to ratify the Constitution): you will find not a single reference to Christianity, and if memory serves me correctly exactly *one* reference to god (and even then it's something like "the laws of nature and of Nature's God" notice that nature gets first billing). Again, couldn't they have mentioned Christianity?
Last, and certainly not least, read through the Treaty of Tripoli. You'll find a reference to Christianity, but it's not a very flattering one.
Sorry, but you're wrong in this regard.
Posted by: Bachalon | October 29, 2008 1:08 AM
I know Abby posted it earlier, but read it again:
A country designed from the beginning to include all people within it's society!What a lofty ideal! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2008 3:06 AM
mroberts,
The first reference to God in the Declaration of Independence is as follows:
"When in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People...to assume...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
How often do Christians use the phrase "Nature's God"? Granted all Christians believe God created nature, as he created all that exists, but this phrasing is one I have never heard used in church (and I have been in at least a couple thousand church services in my life). It's a distancing phrase, whereas Christians believe in a personal God.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 29, 2008 10:42 AM