Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Scott Bloch has been fired as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, the executive agency that investigates all cases of discrimination within the government. Bloch has been under investigation for a variety of things ranging from anti-gay bias to obstruction of justice. Sandefur, who knows Bloch personally after both were Lincoln Fellows with the Claremont Institute, says good riddance:
First, Bloch is one of the most extreme theocrats I have ever met. During our time together in the Lincoln Fellows program six years ago, Bloch made it clear that he sees his Catholic faith as fundamentally opposed to the legacy of Enlightenment political philosophy, including the Declaration of Independence and the principle of separation of church and state. These things were, he repeatedly argued, rooted in Protestant bigotry against the church. When I mentioned that, among other things, the Pope had sworn out a death warrant on Elizabeth I, Bloch brushed it off. "Well, he didn't have the authority to do that." Oh, I see. He knows better than the pope--and finds such squabbles irrelevant in the face of the allegedly thoughtless bigotry of English and American classical liberals. I do not consider this a minor or academic issue. Bloch is the most extreme anti-secularist I have ever had close contact with. When folks at the Claremont Institute are trying to persuade you to be a little more secular, you've gone over some deep end, somewhere, no? Bloch is among the leaders of the very worst elements of religious conservatism in the United States. (And, of course, any critique of his extreme theocratic ideology he simply rejected as "anti-Catholic bigotry," a concept whose abuse I've blogged about before.)And that explains, I think, the other two points: second, Bloch's intense ideological hostility to homosexual equality explains his efforts at OSC to restrict the use of civil rights laws for gays complaining of discrimination--even in the face of direct orders to the contrary from the George Bush White House. Again, when folks in the Bush Administration are trying to persuade you to be a little less hostile to gay rights, you've gone over some deep end, somewhere.
Finally, Bloch's religious blinkers also explain his willingness to lend the credence his office to the Intelligent Design movement (knowing, of course, that he lacked jurisdiction) and to the anti-vaccination fanatics. Both reveal a scientific illiteracy that is borne not of ignorance but of intentional, ideological blindness; the latter incident was particularly irresponsible. In the former case, of course, Bloch simply employed the clever, if unoriginal, political device of simultaneously admitting a lack of jurisdiction while taking political sides.
He also has an interesting take on why Bloch ended up in the position he did:
It's a good thing that the Administration is letting Bloch go; he was an inappropriate hire in the first place. But it's symbolic, I think, of the underlying problems with the religious right within the Republican Party. The Party coddles, and at times encourages, the most extreme elements of theocracy, yet is embarrassed whenever people like Bloch proceed to implement the more controversial (which is to say, the most important) elements of that agenda. Reminds me of the old story of the man who finds a tiger cub in the jungle, and is astonished to discover that it talks. He converses with it about art and philosophy; they play chess and share favorite passages from The Odyssey. The man takes the tiger cub home with him and raises it, teaching it things and introducing it to life in the big city. Years later, when it has grown up, it one day bites him. Bleeding, the man says "Why did you bite me?" to which the tiger replies, "You knew I was a tiger, didn't you?"The Republican party's relationship with the religious right is a combination of sincere ideological commitment to mysticism and the eradication of Enlightenment principles--and an insincere, even cynical desire to exploit those who share that mysticism. In Bloch's case, that tiger bit the Administration time and time again, and it is only now getting around to doing something.
I think he's exactly right here. I don't think Bush or Cheney really gives a damn whether anyone is gay or not, nor do I think either one has any real desire to see gays discriminated against. But they have to pander to those who do in both small ways and big ways. That's why there are so many voices now from Republicans saying, in essence, "we want our party back."
Politics
Comments
Hmmm... I think this slightly underestimates George Bush's ties to the Evangelical Right Wing. That said, I have always been under the impression that Dick Cheney (or, as I call him, "the puppet master") is not a theocrat.
Either way, both are incompetent. It's nice to see that this buffoon is gone now, as late as it may be.
Posted by: JStein | October 27, 2008 10:17 AM
Any word on the current status of Bloch's investigation of Karl Rove?
-TTm
Posted by: Ticktockman | October 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Where can I get one of those cool tigers?
Posted by: dreamstretch | October 27, 2008 11:33 AM
Actually, JStein, there is good evidence that Bush never really bought into the right-wing Christian's utter hostility toward gays. If you remember, a few years back a journalist who was an old friend of the Bush family recorded a number of phone calls with Bush without his knowledge. Few of the recordings were released in the end, but one clip that was had Bush expressing his distaste for the virulent anti-gay attitude of the Republican base.
Now, that doesn't excuse Bush one iota---in fact, it makes him appear more craven---but it does seem to indicate that at least some of his pandering to the religious right was tactical as opposed to ideological in its basis.
Posted by: tacitus | October 27, 2008 11:36 AM
Bloch made it clear that he sees his Catholic faith as fundamentally opposed to the legacy of Enlightenment political philosophy, including the Declaration of Independence and the principle of separation of church and state.
Well, at least that's more honest than pretending the Declaration of Independence and US constitution supports theocracy. Still, "better than Dave Barton" doesn't amount to much.
Posted by: Bartholomew | October 27, 2008 12:41 PM
Last I heard, Bloch had announced he was heading toward the door anyhow. So why did the Busheviks decide he needed to be given an extra kick now?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 27, 2008 12:58 PM
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/thesnake.shtml
Posted by: khan | October 27, 2008 3:24 PM
This is the most extreme example of our government relinquishing its obligation to accommodate religious expression that I can remember in the last three minutes.
Bloch must sue.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 27, 2008 3:53 PM
I have to agree with the argument that the guy is at least better than those who pretend that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are religious documents that support their theocratic ambitions. I do have to wonder though, how did this guy get the job when he apparently hates everything the country stands for?
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 27, 2008 7:09 PM
Absolutely remarkable that your blogger got everything wrong, except a few facts--the fact that Bloch is Catholic, that he attended several seminars by Claremont, and that Bloch probably talked, in passing to this oaf, Brayton.
First, Bloch was not fired, he went on leave following his resignation. Second, Bloch's faith as a Catholic has nothing to do with any investigation, nor with his governance of the agency, OSC. Third, Bloch never made any agency orders having anything to do with his faith, nor with any chrch state separation or linkage. Using Brayton's religious bigotry to attack Bloch is really pathetic.
Bloch's views on intelligent design have nothing to do with his work at the agency, other than the fact his agency got a complaint from a scientist at the Smithsonian, who claimed that he was discriminated against for having religious views--and Bloch's agency investigated these claims. Similarly, when complaints were made to his agency about the inclusion of mercury in vaccinations, he forwarded these complaints to the agency that might have jurisdiction, and took no further official actions. Agasin, Brayton's pathological hatred prevents him from any objective analysis. Reminds me of the ideopogues who never want the facts to confuse them when launching a polemic.
Brayton's assertion that Bloch has ideological hatred with homosexuals and engaged in "discrimination" is simply false. As Brayton is clearly not a lawyer, the fact that Bloch reviewed his statutory authority, and applicable case holdings, which established that OSC had no jurisdiction over persons claiming whistleblower status because they are gay. OSC has no general authority to challenge discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in spite of Bloch's predecessor's efforts to re-write the statutory authority of OSC. In fact, OSC continued to investigate claims of retaliation against federal employees, based on sexual orientation. OSC's own staffers evaluate these complaints and undertake investigations that were and are independent of the head of the agency. These complaints constitue a small handful of the numerous complaints filed with OSC, the bulk of which pertain to the kinds of whistleblower cases of major impact that Bloch advanced, in spite of extreme political pressure to drop the cases--the FAA cases, the cases brought against the Justice Department on the bureau of prisons issues, the Iglesias case, the Rove investigation, the Lurita Doan investigation, etc. However, since these cases don't involve religion or gay people complaining, I guess Brayton would know nothing of these matters.
In fact, through Bloch's leadership, probably hundreds were saved by the grounding of American Airlines and Southwest Airlines planes that FAA had allowed to escape inspection, not to mention the defective pumps in New Orleans that his agency is ensuring are re-inspected, to prevent a regionsal calamity.
There are other factual errors, but suffice to say, I'm confident Brayton won't let the facts get in the way of his hysterical hatred and religious bigotry.
Posted by: Bob the Builder | October 27, 2008 8:52 PM
Bob the Builder - if you are going to fisk someone, you need to provide sources, otherwise it's merely a fairy tale.
For example, Mr. Brayton provides a source for his claim that Bloch was fired, the National Journal's Congress Daily, which claims Mr. Bloch was fired and is under investigation for obstruction of justice. Please provide a source for your claim "he went on leave after his resignation". A claim by the way which doesn't make sense. If someone resigns, how can they subsequently go on leave?
Second, Mr. Brayton never claims that he talked to Mr. Bloch, so why the claim that Mr. Brayton "probably talked, in passing" to Mr. Bloch. That provides some evidence you have a reading comprehension problem and makes all your claims suspect if you can't even correctly refute the simplest assertions or provide sources that elicit confidence in your contrary assertions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 27, 2008 9:07 PM
"See how much we screwed up when in power? That proves government doesn't work!"
Posted by: tincture | October 27, 2008 10:58 PM
Bob the Builder wrote:
Actually, I've never talked to Bloch and never claimed to have done so. Tim Sandefur is who was being quoted and he knows Bloch well.
Well, the National Journal says otherwise: "Scott Bloch, the embattled head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, was fired today in a meeting with White House officials, according to several sources." That is who I cited. An anonymous person on the internet says otherwise. I think we know which source is more credible.
And found that they had no jurisdiction, forcing them to suspend the investigation before doing any real investigation. Despite that, they still wrote a long, tortured letter full of false claims that confirmed the complainer's side of the story - without actually having access to either the documents or the people necessary to reach that conclusion. This was about equal parts dishonest, unethical and absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 28, 2008 12:17 AM
Bloch's departure from Washington signals the arrival of the new anti-religious shock troops. Anyone who doesn't agree with the full gay agenda will be treated as has Scott. Those who refuse to glorify the sodomites will be considered unfit for high office.
Posted by: markcostello | October 28, 2008 10:38 AM
markcostello - And your evidence for this bold assertion is....? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 28, 2008 10:42 AM
He's a Republican. Republican's are always saying that government doesn't work. Their domestic policy is shaped towards proving that, while sucking what's left of the coffers dry, if possible.
"See how much we screwed up when in power? That proves government doesn't work!"
Tincture,
I agree that is how the average Republican seems to operate, the problem is, this guy doesn't just seem to hate government, he seems to hate the very foundations of our entire system of government. Really, at its root he seems to be anti-American on the far right fringe. I really hate to use that phrase, but if you hate the foundational concepts of the entire framework of the government, what else can it be? I would think that even the staunchest anti-government Republican would think twice about associating with this guy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 28, 2008 11:00 AM
Posted by: Foggg | October 29, 2008 8:42 AM
While I wish there were a lot less conservatives in the world, their almost perfectly flawed approach to critical thinking is fascinating to review and provides lots of examples that educate us on what critical thinking is not.
Foggg - you point out a classic case of projectionism by Bob the Builder.
Can we look at the McCain campaign and find the same? Sure, McCain's "Country First" theme, contradicted by his nominating Palin as VP in a process where no one on his campaign team, including McCain himself, tested her on whether she was informed on the issues and where she stood on those issues. Yet we are supposed to believe McCain's most important presidential decision put "country first" when he and his campaign team were too lazy to insure our country was well-served in the event a President McCain could not fulfill his term of office.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 29, 2008 9:10 AM