Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Sean Scallon at The American Conservative:
To her supporters, it really doesn't matter whether Palin has a 20-point plan for this or that or a strategic foreign policy vision because the bond to her is emotional rather than intellectual.
Exactly right. And this is precisely how the kind of martyr pose politics engaged in by Palin and many others is designed to work. All that whining about the "cultural elite" and how unfairly good Christian folk from Small Town America -- you know, all those Hockey Moms and Joe Six Packs -- is explicitly designed to shut off rational thinking and push emotional buttons instead.
This is very basic "divide and conquer" politics: Convince people that they are part of a big oppressed group (despite the fact that they are in the majority in every imaginable way), that the visigoths are not only storming the city gate but are already inside, in power and in control, and you have the perfect recipe for a weird derivation of identity politics.
That is the whole point of the rhetoric coming from the right over the last few decades, whether aimed at "secular humanists" or "liberals" or some vague "elite" that is inexorably at work to undermine everything good and decent and moral in the world. It's also the point of the "take back our country" rhetoric, which harkens back to the classic archetypal Garden of Eden myth -- it used to be so much better in the old days before THEY took over, and if only we could overthrow them we would have paradise reborn.
Politics
Comments
In my case I agree that my support for Palin is 100% emotional. But that is not congenital (in my case, anyway.) It is because there is nobody on the national scene with politics similar to my own--which is best described as Goldwater libertarian/conservatism. It's not just that there is nobody close to this position, there is nobody in the friggin' zipcode. Since to first order I consider both national parties equally distant from my own politics, it has become for me a who would be interesting or amusing to have as president? selection
If I could vote for anyone at all on the current national scene, it'd be Bill Clinton.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 9:54 AM
"Convince people that they are part of a big oppressed group (despite the fact that they are in the majority in every imaginable way)..."
I would argue that the reason the right is embracing the concept of being a persecuted minority is that they are the minority (in a democratic political sense), so they want to feel victimized.
Posted by: Jordan G | January 6, 2010 10:02 AM
Well, of course Heddle would vote for someone amusing, being a Calvinist and all. But, this isn't like voting for Kinky Friedman for gubner of Texas, Dave. National politics is serious stuff!
So, I never understood how "elite" got to be an epithet. Don't people want someone smart to be running the country? There is nothing wrong with someone having common sense, but not when it is used as a shield to actually trying to learn about issues.
Posted by: carlsonjok | January 6, 2010 10:04 AM
Wait a sec Ed, you said: 'It's also the point of the "take back our country" rhetoric, which harkens back to the classic archetypal Garden of Eden myth -- it used to be so much better in the old days before THEY took over, and if only we could overthrow them we would have paradise reborn.'
You mean those nasty RRR's want to overthrow GOD ALMIGHTY!
You heard it here first folks! :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 6, 2010 10:09 AM
Heddle,
That's how we got the chickenhawks in the first place, Ralph Nader wanted to teach the dems a lesson, "may you live in interesting times" is a curse, not a blessing, or "hey, let's get another keg".
Posted by: The Pale Scot | January 6, 2010 10:11 AM
In my case I agree that my support for Palin is 100% emotional...
Which shows us (again) that heddle's erzatz-Calvinist sophistry is a totally useless, pretentious load of crap, with absolutely no relevance in the real world.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 10:26 AM
It would be counter-productive to have an intellectual bond to someone who has no intellectual abilities - the target of your devotion would cast you aside.
Posted by: dean | January 6, 2010 10:35 AM
I don't recall if this has been passed around SciBlogs yet, but it can't hurt to share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk
My favorite is the woman at 1:55. Apparently you can be stupid and smug about it. I wonder how it must feel to go through life with your brain ticking like a comatose patient's EKG.
Posted by: Brandon | January 6, 2010 10:36 AM
heddle stated:
Mr. Goldwater distinguishes his brand of conservatism on several matters, two of which continue to strongly influence the Republican party platform while the others are mostly rejected (he was way more secularist than the current GOP and conservative movement):
1) "States rights", i.e., that the federal government did not have the power to defend the individual or minority rights of people against the unconstitutional encroachment of power by state and lower government entities. This was clearly laid out in its own chapter in Goldwater's seminal book, Conscience of a Conservative. Mr. Goldwater fails to consider the ramifications of "the people" phrase in the 10th Amendment focusing exclusively on states.
2) That the federal judiciary and the legislature had no business defending the unenumerated rights of individuals vs. those who violated those rights whether they were people, private entities, or government. A prime example was African American people's right to travel vs. others' right to deny them services required for them to exercise their right to travel, e.g., food, gasoline, hotel accomodatations. Mr. Goldwater was on the side of the people arguing their right to deny service was not the business of government as he stood opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Goldwater's failure here is to ignore the federal government's obligation to defend the superior rights of others, as the federal courts held during that time and as how Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy understood their obligations when they sent troops and law enforcement to the South against tyrannical states.
Sarah Palin has made it exceedingly clear she supports these principles when they support her political positions or the populists' who support her; do you as well heddle?
Given Sen. McCain's nomination to run as President of the GOP and his being from Arizona and occassionally laying claim to Sen. Goldwater's legacy, I re-read Conscience last summer and also watched the excellent documentary his kids did on him (though it was unsurprisingly biased). While I obviously respected Sen. Goldwater's policy position on the separation of church and state, I could find no articulate constitutional arguments by Mr. Goldwater in terms of first principles extending beyond the narrow definition of the 1st amendment.
One of two reasons I figure he failed to connect the dots could be because such analysis would show how contra Sen. Goldwater's position on rights in general was relative to both the 9th and 14th Amendments along with James Madison's understanding of the 'privileges and immunities' clause in Art. IV, Sec. 2*. A second possible reason is that Sen. Goldwater's position didn't extend any deeper than shallowly laid-out talking points, consistent with most conservative politicians even today. His book argues largely for the latter, there was evidence he was not well read nor much of a researcher or deep thinker beyond his own personal ruminations.
I would strongly favor more of a Goldwater-like GOP than the present Teabaggers who dominate the party, but his superiority to them alone shouldn't cause us to look at him with rose-colored glasses either. Such a party, while stronger than the current one, would still be seriously dysfunctional in defending our liberty rights and allowing us to exercise those rights as well.
*The relevant text: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 6, 2010 10:36 AM
McCain is most emphatically not "from Arizona." He just stopped here long enough to buy an apartment in a district with an open election coming up.
I knew Barry Goldwater. Barry was a friend of my father's. John McCain is no Barry Goldwater.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 6, 2010 10:47 AM
Except that the right was screaming persecution well before 2006, when it became a political minority. I suspect that the real reason right-wingers market themselves as persecuted is because they know that their cultural hegemony is rapidly slipping away, and unless they wield total cultural, social, religious, and political power, they perceive themselves as victims.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 6, 2010 10:51 AM
I do respect Barry Goldwater for one thing, though--he was actually a pretty good landscape photographer, and produced some nice images of the Arizona countryside.
Posted by: Moopheus | January 6, 2010 10:54 AM
There's been a lot of conservative analysis regarding Ms. Palin which attempts to frame its analysis of those who reject Ms. Palin in a manner that claims no bias. Most of the time they tick off one of two of the many reasons most people (including half of GOP women) find Ms. Palin 'not qualified' to be President (a far worse indictment than the normal 'approve'/'don't approve' research). I find these lists to be strawmen.
Here are the tangible factors I'd argue better capture the entire set of rational reasons people reject her (where I collate several articulations into a reduced set, in no particular order):
1) Astonishingly dishonest.
2) Incredibly lazy.
3) Partisan to the point of being divisive.
4) Almost perfectly uninformed.
5) Anti-intellectual (read - pro-"uncommon common sense" to the point of rejecting consensus positions of functional experts).
6) Complete lack of executive skills (including leadership qualities for governance and administration).
7) Emotionally intelligent? She's emotionally retarded.
8) Fierce opposition to learning anything that requires time reading, studying, or considering several perspectives.
9) Relies on intuitive hunches fueled by religious fantasies rather than empirical facts framed by rational analysis.
I'd love comments on factors I missed. I parse 5, 8, or 9 given I think one could lack in some aspects of these and still succeed if they complemented their weaknesses in these areas in both their staff and how they depended on staff (e.g., by mid-tenure of Reagan' presidency he clearly displayed #8 on foreign policy matters pertaining to our relations with the USSR, but he had such a strong staff and relied on their judgment we weren't harmed as much as I predict we would be if Palin were in the same position).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 6, 2010 10:56 AM
Mr. Heath @ 13:
Hammer, meet nail.
There's no question that Palin's narrow, but loud base is grounded almost exclusively in emotion. And while emotion can be a powerful motivator for voters (it helped Obama and Bush), it cannot be exclusively relied upon to get anyone elected because eventually that candidate will have to offer a cogent and/or original idea that she didn't crib from Hannity's show the night before.
Posted by: CHV | January 6, 2010 11:04 AM
Michael Heath,
OK I'll give a broad un-nuanced answer.
Yes I support "state's rights." I would prefer that the US was a collection of almost independent countries (with open borders) at least by today's standards, than what we have, where state borders are not all that meaningful.
As for protecting minority rights when it comes to doing business it is a tough question for today--because it is doubtful in the era of corporate welfare whether truly private companies or entities exist. But in principle if some racist owns a store and he doesn't want to serve certain groups, I will definitely hold my nose and support his right to do so and hope to hell that he gets picketed and boycotted and run out of business.
But once a business or a university is on the government's teet, then the government is free to impose regulations.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 11:04 AM
Re Michael Heath
I think that what happened with Reagan was that moderate Rethuglicans like Howard Baker and Colin Powell replaced the ideologues who had been influencing him earlier on. To a minor extent, something similar happened to Bush when Gates replaced Rumsfeld.
Posted by: SLC | January 6, 2010 11:07 AM
... no wonder conservatives don't recognize Colbert as parody. He talks about 'truthiness' and thinking with your gut instead of your brain, and they agree with him completely.
"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."
Posted by: mad the swine | January 6, 2010 11:13 AM
Michael Heath
She passed that point 3 weeks into the 2008 campaign. The racist, homophobic crowds at her rallies were encouraged to loudly and proudly proclaim those feelings. She's not fit for a job as a meter maid.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 6, 2010 11:15 AM
We tried that and found it unworkable. That's why we have the Constitution instead of the Articles of Conferedation.
Posted by: SWT | January 6, 2010 11:38 AM
And by "Articles of Conferedation" I mean "Articles of Confederation" ...
Posted by: SWT | January 6, 2010 11:40 AM
She's not fit for a job as a meter maid.
Certainly not now, that they have tablet PC's. She'd be uncomfortable with "them clicky things".
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 11:42 AM
Why?
Posted by: pough | January 6, 2010 12:03 PM
Absolutely! I've been moaning about this since 2000. Some Bush supporters were proclaiming his regular-guyness as the main reason to vote for him. I don't *want* a regular guy as my president. I want someone exceptional--exceptionally intelligent, wise, educated, rational, eloquent, articulate, adept at human interaction for example. And then to re-elect the regular guy? Sheesh. And now some people would like to see Palin, who in my opinion is even less-qualified than Bush was, to be president. I just don't get it.
Posted by: Mandrake | January 6, 2010 12:06 PM
pough,
For what I suspect are the standard reasons that anyone with my political views has: I don't trust others (i.e. elected officials) to make decisions in my interest. Rather I expect they will make decisions in their own interests. And their own interest is driven by the desire for immediate gratification (i.e., get reelected) rather than delayed gratification (what is in the long term good.) And the further removed they are from me, the less I trust them. I agree, to first order, with the adage that all politics is local. I think our government should reflect that--as heavy as necessary on the local side, and as lightweight as possible on the federal side. If someone is going sponsor legislation that is going to have a profound affect on my life or the lives of my kids, I want him or her, as much as possible, to be within walking distance. I don't want him/her to be a congressman from a district across the country who has never been in my state but happens to be chairing some powerful house finance committee and may have received campaign contributions from the very industries he/she is supposed to be monitoring. In short, I don't want some jackass racist like Robert Byrd with his hands in my pocket building funding monuments to himself in a state that I rarely even drive through.
Simple, pie-in-the-sky stuff--but I never claimed my politics were sophisticated.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 12:23 PM
Re: state's rights - Actually, as much as I disagree with Heddle about pretty much everything (and I still relish that thread in which Capt. Holcomb handed him his hat, theologically, which he would, of course, never admit), I've felt for some time that Balkanization wouldn't be a bad idea. Gore Vidal, among others, has been pushing for it for years. I live in godless, liberal Boston. I don't want a bunch of Texas bubbas deciding what goes into my nieces' and nephews' schoolbooks. I don't want the religious ravings of Southern rednecks being turned into public policy that affects me. If we had proportional representation, as the Europeans have, it wouldn't be as much of a problem - but this would still be nation of imbeciles. If it were up to me, I'd restrict voting to people who are reasonably conversant with consensual reality - but that ain't gonna happen, either (and I keep getting told I'm a hateful, hateful man even for suggesting it).
I realize this would disenfranchise the few liberals and secularists in these areas. All I can suggest, without meaning to sound flippant or insensitive is - move, if at all possible. Let them have their theocracy. It'll be easier to manage them if we keep them isolated.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 12:27 PM
Jeff Eyges,
Exactly.
Link please. Many people have handed me my hat, but I don't recall that person doing it--so, again, link please.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 12:31 PM
There is some basis for believing that conservatives start out as easily offended preschoolers and end up as easily offended adults. See the following reference to a longitudinal study showing that.
Posted by: CDRealist | January 6, 2010 12:33 PM
I messed up the link somehow. It is http://cdrealist.blogspot.com/2009/11/biological-basis-for-political.html
Posted by: CDRealist | January 6, 2010 12:35 PM
One of the things that amuses me about these "States Rights" types is that apart from the original 13 colonies, all of the remaining states in this country only exist at all as a result of federal government policies. For example, the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the purchase of Alaska, etc.
To quote Nicky Santoro to Sam Rosenthal in 'Casino', "You only exist out here because of ME!"
Listen, either rights that citizens as set forth under the Constitution either mean something in every state of the Union or they don't. States rights more often than not ends up being a mantra for bigots to justify treating people differently.
Posted by: Tommykey | January 6, 2010 12:39 PM
Heddle:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/hes_gonna_be_gay_too.php#comments
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 12:48 PM
CDRealist - love it. Confirms my suspicions and validates my prejudices!
I've posted this here before; there's a guy at U Florida who's done some brain imaging work along these lines:
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Heilman-neuroscienceandfundamentalism
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 12:59 PM
Being from NY, I would love to see the south go off into their own country (they could call it something like the CSA perhaps). They steal my tax dollars and then complain that I dare to suggest that racism is a bad thing. If NY left the United States and became part of France I would be a much happier person.
Posted by: Tom | January 6, 2010 1:02 PM
Posted by: Onkel Bob | January 6, 2010 1:02 PM
If NY left the United States and became part of France I would be a much happier person.
As someone who is considering moving to New York, I agree!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 1:07 PM
If you don't want that stuff in your nieces' and nephews' schoolbooks, then why is it acceptable to put it in the schoolbooks of other people's nieces and nephews? The problem here isn't that states can influence each other; it's that Texas is just wrong on this issue regardless of how many people are affected. On top of that, limiting federal government wouldn't help much in this particular case, because choosing public school textbooks is already a state-level decision and not a federal one. If the states were more independent, the textbook writers would still cater to the largest consumers and those books would still be the ones that they make available for smaller states like Massachusetts.
Posted by: catgirl | January 6, 2010 1:09 PM
"Yes I support "state's rights." I would prefer that the US was a collection of almost independent countries (with open borders) at least by today's standards, than what we have, where state borders are not all that meaningful."
Worked for Yugoslavia.
Posted by: History Punk | January 6, 2010 1:10 PM
Textbook publishers court Texas to determine which books to publish, and then the rest of the country is stuck with them. That's certainly a problem, but how is greater state sovereignty going to circumvent what is essentially a business plan? Refuse to adopt Texas-approved textbooks? Why can't Massachusetts do that now?
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 1:12 PM
What catgirl said.
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 1:15 PM
Yes I support "state's rights." I would prefer that the US was a collection of almost independent countries...
In other words, you want your country to be so divided against itself that it's unable to do any meaningful good on a national scale, let alone a global scale, when there are so many problems that cannot possibly be resolved on less than a national scale? Fuck you, heddle, you're not a patriot, you're an enemy of the US.
And you have a good reason to support Palin: dividing Americans against themselves, and obstructing progress, are two things she really is good at. al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Saudis will thank you for your 100% emotion-based allegiances.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 1:15 PM
Jeff Eyges #30,
You are right I won’t admit it. In fact I think his response was incredibly weak—nothing compared to the challenges I get from James Hanley, or Spartan, or Michael Heath—just to name a few. He stated the obvious, which I never denied, that the majority opinion has always been for a late date of Revelation. I pointed to arguments for an earlier date and reviewed the rather slim evidence for the later date—when you investigate it is mostly a matter of tradition. He then resorted in #82, to an argument from authority and in #85 to an argument from credentials. (If the latter is valid, then Bill Dembski trumps most of his detractors.) At least one of the experts he arrayed against my position (Preterism) is actually a preterist. He claims he doesn’t really know what the term means, but is sure his experts are not (event though he doesn’t know what it means.) He later says that his statement about not knowing what it means is because it means so many different things—which is utter nonsense—it means quite simply the view that prophecies of Jesus concerning such things as the Tribulation have already been fulfilled. (It is the polar opposite of the Left-Behind viewpoint.) You may not agree, but it is not ambiguous. He asks for some Preterist theologians—I provide him with some. He reminds me that he writes more theology in one year than I ever will.
I see you got all doe-eyed with him—I think that is biasing your view. There is no way that he “handed me my hat.”
If you want to find an example of someone handing me my hat, find the AfterTheBarCloses (AtBC) thread where the the Amused Muse Kristine (familiar to most commenters here, I suspect) handed me my hat for claiming atheists hate God. That time I had to eat crow and retract my statement.
Onkel Bob,
Would you like to try naive lets-slide-down-that-slippery-slope-to-the-absurd arguments for $400?
Well there is, so you may yet get your wish--born no doubt of your laudable liberal tolerance for the views of others.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 1:20 PM
Raging Bee,
That's a fair point--it would be a shame to sacrifice the amazing fraternal unity we enjoy as a result of our strong Federal government. What was I thinking?
A brilliant analysis that lives up to the standard you have set for yourself. Though you are partially correct--I'm no patriot. I'm just a pilgrim in the land.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 1:30 PM
heddle,
Re your support of 'states rights'. While realizing no system is perfect and there will be defects with any approach, how do you justify the following:
It's my understanding that one of the biggest miscalculations by some of the framers (e.g., Jefferson) was that one's rights would be best defended by government entities closest to the people when in fact Madison's fears regarding tyrannical majorities ultimately were realized on many issues where the defender of our rights was instead the federal government, e.g., slavery, civil rights, equal protection under the law, anti-miscegenation laws, laws against homosexuality, defense of the rights of public school children, etc.
So I'm a little surprised you argue in favor of 'states rights' as if more local government best defends our freedoms when in fact my reading of history portrays nearly the exact opposite regarding many aspects related to individual liberty (though certainly not all).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 6, 2010 1:51 PM
In my lifetime, pro "states rights" arguments have usually been tied to limiting individual rights, rather than increasing them. I've also never felt that state government was closer to me than the federal government in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Taz | January 6, 2010 1:58 PM
Taz,
The argument that always gets put to me is that you have more control over your state government than the federal government, because there are far fewer voters in your state than in the country as a whole. While in that might be correct, in reality the federal government (specifically, the Supreme Court) has done more to help individual freedoms in my state than the local one has, or would if left it its own devices.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 6, 2010 2:12 PM
@Heddle: You are right I won’t admit it.
Yeah, well - I guess that makes me a prophet.
I wouldn't say I got "doe-eyed". I do admire Capt. Holcomb. He's the first Christian I've encountered in many years who hasn't made me want to kill him and/or myself. I particularly liked this line: "If I weren't already a Christian, I don't see anything in the Christian world today that would make me want to be a Christian." The reason I resonate with that is something I couldn't begin to explain to you. We're speaking entirely different languages.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 2:15 PM
Catgirl,
If you don't want that stuff in your nieces' and nephews' schoolbooks, then why is it acceptable to put it in the schoolbooks of other people's nieces and nephews?
You're right, I agree; it isn't acceptable! I just don't see what can be done about it. There are more of them than there are of us. I see it as a cut-our-losses-and-run move, at this point.
Your point about textbook publishers is valid, although I'm not sure it would play out that way. The liberal regions could establish their own.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 2:18 PM
Jeff Eyges:
heddle is, for once, correct. Capt. Holcomb did not hand him hat. heddle lit out without grabbing that or his coat, last time.
Posted by: democommie | January 6, 2010 2:53 PM
Heddle
As we often said in the military, Fox Oscar Alpha Delta. I have likely, nay undoubtedly, spent more of my life, sacrificed more of my time, money, and blood, for this country, withn the hopes of making it a better place, in one day's work than you have spent in your entire life. I've worked harder to develop a more tolerant society, contributed more to the public discourse then you ever will. Echo Sierra buddy, Echo Sierra! Take your silly superstition and medieval mindset, and Insert and Rotate. Tolerance is for those who deserve respect, you have earned and deserve disdain.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | January 6, 2010 2:55 PM
I honestly don't know why Massachusetts doesn't do that now. I think that states are seriously underestimating the power they have over textbook companies. Even if a special textbook had to be written for the state of Massachusetts alone, I can't imagine that there are no textbook publishers who could step up and produce it at a profit.
Even the big publisher could just take the Texas edition of a biology textbook, add some biology to it, and produce a second edition for states that demand biology content. For a state's worth of textbook sales, that seems like an easy kill.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 6, 2010 2:55 PM
@5 "we got the chickenhawks in the first place" because Gore ran the third worst presidential campaign in history (surpassed only by Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008). His "strategy" consisted of pretending he barely knew Bill Clinton, leaving as little daylight as possible between himself and Bush, and completely ignoring the issues Nader was talking about in the hope of pulling in sufficient electoral votes to win. The Democrats have been blaming Nader for Bush for nearly a decade now and have never gotten the actual take-away they should have from any of the intervening elections: Stand for Something.
Posted by: usagi | January 6, 2010 3:12 PM
Onkel Bob,
Don't hurt your arm while patting yourself on the back. Don't over exert your lungs while tooting your own horn.
Onkel Bob #49,
Words are cheap. You give no evidence of being tolerant--in hoping I spend eternity in eternal torment you prove yourself to be nothing more than a small-minded garden-variety trailer-park bigot.
Furthermore, you have no clue what I have done with my life, how I may or may not have helped people, how my university teaching may or may not have contributed to an educated populace, how hard I have or have not worked in and contributed to charitable efforts to help others. You may be right, you may deserve a Nobel Peace Prize compared to me, but if you are right it would be by accident. You have no basis whatsoever for your claim. In short, you are talking out your ass.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 3:16 PM
Michael Heath,
I don't think there are enough data to support your claim. Some states will be more progressive, some less, but there is no evidence that they won't drag each other along toward modernity, especially in an era of mass communication and easy transportation. It is true that the federal government can advance rights for everyone at once--but it can also (think FISA, think Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell) toss rights away or restrict rights in one fell swoop. Uniformity cuts both ways.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 3:35 PM
Heddle, how in the name of Pie do you justify a belief that we'd be better off as nigh-independent countries when that was the first thing we tried, and it was so terrible of an idea that we stopped in less then a decade?
Posted by: Rutee | January 6, 2010 3:45 PM
Rutee,
Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think they should be independent countries--just much more independent than they are now. I support a common currency, military, interstate commerce, antitrust legislation, the bill of rights, etc. I support a federal income tax. One can support all those things and still be against a senator from Tennessee dictating how many gallons-per-flush is acceptable for my toilet.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 3:52 PM
Well, if you support actual taxes to pay for those things you're doing better then the Articles of Confederation did.
Technically speaking, that senator retains that right. He simply has to say "You can not /ship/ toilets above X gallons per flush across state lines".
Posted by: Rutee | January 6, 2010 3:55 PM
While I think Sarah Palin is a pandering goober, Scallon's observation that, "...the bond to her is emotional rather than intellectual" can be applied to any number of political figures including Obama. (Disclaimer: I voted for Obama.)
There is nothing very surprising about this observation.
Ed follows by saying,
"Convince people that they are part of a big oppressed group (despite the fact that they are in the majority in every imaginable way), that the visigoths are not only storming the city gate but are already inside, in power and in control, and you have the perfect recipe for a weird derivation of identity politics."
Certainly a version of this strategy was successfully employed by Obama's campaign during the last election. Bush and the Republicans were portrayed as a radical tribe of warmongers running a muck for the benefit of a small group of wealthy corporations and sinister "neo-cons".
Obama's campaign portrayed him as a populist savior out to bring social justice to the downtrodden masses, peace to the world and "green" economic prosperity. Throw in turning back the rising oceans and you have an emotional appeal custom made for the left just as Palin's message is tailored for her right-wing audience.
It worked pretty well. Unfortunately much of Obama's post election policies haven't been significantly different than Bush's. His economic policies have mirrored Bush's bail outs and his foreign policy has followed the trajectory set by the out going administration, even retaining Bush's secretary of defense.
Perhaps politics has always had more to do with emotional factors than intellectual ones.
Posted by: Lance | January 6, 2010 4:41 PM
Why can't that do that right now? There may be legitimate arguments for more "states rights", but this situation certainly isn't one of them. I honestly don't know how much federal involvement there is in textbook publishing, but it's a small amount, if any. This is already a "state's right" and it's working out poorly. I don't see how you can blame the federal government for this one, or how giving the states more power would solve this. Textbooks are already a state-level issue.
Posted by: catgirl | January 6, 2010 4:42 PM
One can support all those things and still be against a senator from Tennessee dictating how many gallons-per-flush is acceptable for my toilet.
What law or policy gives ANY senator that power? Does heddle have ANY clue what he's talking about?
And why are we arguing with a guy who pretends to support "Goldwater libertarian/conservatism" while supporting a corrupt, uneducable, anti-rationalist religious bigot with a Third-World witch-hunting charlatan for a minister? Seriously, heddle's turning out to be a Calvinist version of Camille Paglia; and the noise in his head is getting annoying.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 4:50 PM
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 5:08 PM
Raging Bee,
Yeah, on Wednesdays I pretend to be a Goldwater libertarian. On Fridays, I pretend to be a stoic. On Saturdays, I pretend to be Joe Torre. I wish you hadn't outed me.
Is someone forcing you to read my comments?
Chayanov,
You missed the boat that much? The difference (this shouldn't require explanation. Really.) If is my senator, I can vote against him.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 5:14 PM
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 5:17 PM
Tom@32 "If NY left the United States and became part of France I would be a much happier person."
What?!! And have obnoxious nose-in-the-air snobs driving hacks complaining about your hygiene using Andrew "Dice" Clay vocabulary???!!!
Posted by: JimNorth | January 6, 2010 5:18 PM
Chayanov,
Yes I can see clearly how my not liking what Tennessee voters do and my wanting to to be in charge of the whole process follows inevitably from my support for states' rights. Quite so.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 5:21 PM
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 5:23 PM
Meanwhile, supposed "smaller government, more rights" Congressional Republicans are attempting to impose their will on the right of Washington, D.C. to legalize same-sex marriage. Which is more compelling -- their hypocrisy or their bigotry?
Posted by: Chayanov | January 6, 2010 5:34 PM
Chayanov ,
You are 100% correct. Your argument makes as much sense as my being for states' rights because a theocratic bigot winked at me on tv once.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 5:35 PM
The trend toward emotional appeal in place of reasoned argument isn't new by any means but it certainly has had a boost during the past fifty or so years. The shift from the printed word or the spoken word (radio) to images and an immediate human presence (video reporters, anchors and "authorities") has been a boon to anyone with an agenda that can be advanced by triggering deeply ingrained emotions. Typically, people with certain political and social leanings in common will also display identifiable emotional hot buttons. Media that combines written and spoken words with live reportage and commentary along with images and video selected specifically for its influence on targeted hot buttons are now the chief sources of most (all?) communication dealing with governance, finance and whatever passes for "civil discussion in the town square" these days.
I have been watching the evening news for about fifty years now. Most of the obvious differences are tech related, better cameras, satellite links et cetera. One obvious difference that stands out boldly to me seems to be either unnoticed or downplayed by so many of my fellow citizens. In place of the dispassionate and low key reportage I remember from Cronkite and Huntley the news and comment of today is a bleating cacophony of spin and word choice, rant and rave, appeals to knee jerk assumptions and always, a promise, "more to come after this."
I can deal with it and winnow out the chaff but I am concerned for my children and their young families. I'm concerned for anyone coming of age in these years. I do what I can when the opportunity arises to tip some on off or to intrigue a young person with a sly challenge or to even engage in serious debate from time to time. It feels like pissing into the sea.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 6, 2010 7:48 PM
Catgirl, again, you have a point. Perhaps the answer as to why we don't do it now is that there hasn't been enough pressure (social, economic) to do so. Regionalization might create such a climate.
I just want to make it clear, btw - I'm talking about regionalization, not "every state for itself". And I'm not married to the idea. What I am convinced of is that America, as it exists currently, isn't working.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 6, 2010 7:49 PM
2) Incredibly lazy.
This one alone should disqualify Palin from further consideration by any voters who aren't suffering from frank retrocranial inversion. She quit her job as soon as it became difficult. There are kids slinging burgers at McDonalds who have more of a sense of responsibility than Sarah Palin does.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | January 6, 2010 7:52 PM
An addition to Michael Heath's list upthread at #13:
10. Way too perky way too often.
The rest of his list I find agreeable and I'd add that the overlap of 5, 8 and 9 also seem to indicate a world view that involves a reliance on a hefty amount of revelation and spiritual insight or whatchacall, a deep, personal relationship with non physical entity. If one can't do it one's self one might rely on special knowledge from a privileged and private source. I think I've heard that one lately . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 6, 2010 8:13 PM
One can support all those things and still be against a senator from Tennessee dictating how many gallons-per-flush is acceptable for my toilet.
Is that your best example?
Water conservation is something that really needs to be managed at the Federal level. If it were controlled locally, then you'd have to worry about the people upstream using excessive amounts of water and then bottling the rest to sell to their neighbors downstream.
You can make an argument that low-volume toilets should only be required in areas where water conservation is a big priority...but then you'd have to worry about high-volume toilets getting smuggled across state lines and it makes enforcement a lot harder.
I think there's an important lesson to be learned from the health care debate that's going on in Congress: It's really, really hard to pass laws creating new responsibilities for the federal government, even when everyone with any common sense understands that it needs to be done.
Certainly there are lots of cases where the federal government has overreached. But I don't think we should just repeal laws blindly, without understanding why people thought local control wasn't good enough.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | January 6, 2010 8:42 PM
Continuing the list for Palin:
11) Paranoid (deeply suspicious of the slightest questioning of her actions or motives)
12) Disloyal (as many past friends and colleagues have found once they were no longer useful to her)
Posted by: tacitus | January 6, 2010 8:46 PM
Raging Bee:
I understand your frustration, but its not quite that clear cut.
Unlike many libertarians I'm actually largely indifferent on the centralisation question. I care about whether policy is good, not who makes it. But there are some reasons why multiple, smaller polities might be better than a single, larger one in some cases.
1) Coordination problems work both ways. An agreement on climate change would be harder (mind you, I think it effectively impossible anyway), but I doubt if Iraq would have happened if the US was 50 countries, or even 5.
2) Policy in a polity is driven by the preferences of the median voter. When voter preferences are geographically heterogeneous, splitting a polity up lets each group of voters get something closer to their own preferences. If the South went its own way, the downside would be that evolution would be banished from their textbooks. The upside is that the North would have no problem with its textbooks, and you'd have a much better shot at getting national gay marriage established. The question is, would you rather have more influence over a small area or less influence over a large area?
3) Tiebout Competition. If migration between polities is fairly low cost (and that's an important if) then bad policy will drive people away. That acts as another check on bad government.
I'm not saying Heddle is right, merely that he's not necessarily wrong. Countries are just lines on a map, its people that matter and those lines should be drawn in a way that is best for people. All I'm sure about is that the optimal number of countries is more than 1 and less than 1 per person.
Posted by: James K | January 7, 2010 12:14 AM
chaos_engineer,
Maybe. Or the other possibility is that a politically powerful state such as say, California, can influence the federal government to pass legislation and fund water projects that are ultimately to the detriment of, say, the people in Utah. And the delegation from Maine who don't give a rat's ass and couldn't find Utah on a map go along because decisions on, say, a naval base in Maine are coming up, and they sure could use California's support. Or maybe the bill is written with a "Northern Atlantic Coastline Recovery Act" attachment that gives $200 billion for any state with coastlines on the Atlantic above 42° 58′ N.
Posted by: heddle | January 7, 2010 4:44 AM
When Oregon passed their "death with dignity" laws, and when California legalized medical marijuana, we saw how much the neo-cons really cared about states' rights.
But those cases do give examples where a stronger sense of states' rights would have made for a net gain across American society.
Economic growth in the US was fueled by the fact that each state acted differently with respect to its internal commerce. That created specialization, the most important tool of capitalism. Each states' natural and intellectual resources led to not only the prosperity of those states, but of all the states in the Union. What would happen to the smaller, politically weaker states if the larger, richer ones could just come in and take whatever they wanted?
How do you feel when a group of lobbyists comes into your state to try to write laws that have nothing to do with you and the way you and your neighbors live? Here in Washington, we had a vote on a "death with dignity" law. It was defeated by a group funded nearly 100% with OUT OF STATE MONEY. The same is true when it comes to our attempts to equalize treatment of same-gender unions and open up the education system to provide more options. In each case, out of state money and influence has prevailed over what would have been the will of the people of Washington, if we had been left on our own.
Concentration of power cuts both ways. And I still find it ironic that those who decry the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of corporate leaders are happy to give up their hard-earned money and liberty to a few people who work in D.C. Those folks say, "Well, at least we can vote the bad guys out of office." Perhaps, but for some reason, that doesn't seem to stick. How effective were you at preventing GWB from being elected - twice? The only thing that got him out of the Oval Office was the fact that some rational people in the past gave us the gift of Presidential term limits.
That is what we need more of: Legal checks that limit the power of government, at all levels, and put the power back into the hands of individuals. Along the way, I would be quite happy to see the end the legalized fiction of corporate personhood.
Posted by: 10,000li | January 7, 2010 8:01 AM
Also, I'm wondering what legal/philosophical concept the Underground Railroad folks were relying on to give freedom to the slaves they managed to help escape to the North? Wasn't it the rights of the free states to have their own laws - banning slavery?
Posted by: 10,000li | January 7, 2010 8:48 AM
No, I think you've completely missed my point. If you want to argue that states or "regions" should have more power and the federal government less, then you should pick a case where the states/region don't already have that power. Arguing against federal influence in this situation is silly because there is already little federal influence. You can't blame someone that's barely even involved.
Posted by: catgirl | January 7, 2010 9:08 AM
Heddle,
This is a convenient, but idiotic and childish interpretation of "tolerance" of points of view. By your projected definition, liberals would be required to allow bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes and others to spew their hatred without any reply or effort to contradict them. Protection of someone else's point of view does not imply nor require you to remain silent when that point of view is detrimental to others.
Your support for state's rights based on the claim that local government is more open to protecting your rights is equally silly. As has been pointed out quite clearly, history is replete with examples of the states being forced by the federal government to protect the individual rights and civil liberties of their citizens from the tyranny of local majorities so easily established in state and local politics. This protection was necessary across the gambit from speech rights all the way up to and including life itself. Until the Federal Government stepped in through the courts and forced states to respect the rights of minorities, state and local government simply didn't do so and, in reality, continue to strive to do so. Within a given week Ed provides examples of state and local government straining to trample upon the rights of their citizens restrained only by the federal government that you mock and denigrate.
Sorry, reality counters your position quite effectively, you may want to take a reflective moment and reconsider your stance.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 7, 2010 9:20 AM
heddle - You missed the boat that much? The difference (this shouldn't require explanation. Really.) If is my senator, I can vote against him.
Then you must also be opposed to state legislatures, which likewise contain people you didn't vote for making laws that apply to you.
Posted by: Taz | January 7, 2010 9:30 AM
@Catgirl: No, I think you've completely missed my point. If you want to argue that states or "regions" should have more power and the federal government less, then you should pick a case where the states/region don't already have that power. Arguing against federal influence in this situation is silly because there is already little federal influence. You can't blame someone that's barely even involved.
You really aren't understanding me. Perhaps I'm expressing it poorly. In any case, I don't want to argue about it. As I said, I'm not married the idea.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 7, 2010 11:11 AM
dogmeatib
I think you'd sing a different tune if, say, a Republican congressman said that he hopes Nancy Pelosi goes to eternal torment in hell. Now personally I don't mind someone saying I should go to hell--I'm rather used to it--but when that person (Onkel Bob in this case) goes on to claim the moral highground, I'm going to call him out on it.
That's only because the situation is asymmetric. It is true that the federal government can protect rights threatened by a state government, and yes we have some examples. But the lack of counter examples is because they can't happen. Virginia can't do anything to counter, say, Obama's shameful flip-flop on FISA and other personal liberty issues. Or DADT. So you comment amounts to a tautology.
Taz,
Too a much less degree. There is an issue of scale. As much as I hate the power a senator from Oregon has over my life, I'd hate it even more if it was a bureaucrat in Brussels.
Posted by: heddle | January 7, 2010 11:26 AM
FWIW I thought Onkel Bob's diatribe against heddle extended well beyond any evidence he had and was totally classless.
heddle stated:
Your point about my examples that dogmeatIB referred to and why they're weighted in favor of the federal government is an interesting point I'm not sure I've adequately considered (I've held this position for years so I can't exactly remember all previous considerations and lessons). I'll be reconsidering my position though that'll take some time.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 12:14 PM
Nope, I wouldn't. I didn't agree with the statement or feel that you deserved it, that doesn't mean that Onkel Bob didn't or did have the moral high ground, really that argument is irrelevant. My point is, again, if we adopt your argument regarding a liberal respect or tolerance for "all positions" then you, by definition, expect liberals to respect and accept all positions. That is an utterly ridiculous argument to make and you know it. If it helps, it'd be like me expecting you to take absolutely no offense or reply/respond to any statement no matter how vile or offensive because you are a Christian and should turn the other cheek. Simply a silly argument to make. I never tried to claim that you hadn't been insulted, that the insult was justified or reasonable, or attempted to support the insult.
Actually this isn't quite true. First, you're the one advocating for a change in the system despite the fact that such a change would lead to a system where we already see serious abuses of individual rights, liberties, and lives. This is akin to a libertarian arguing in favor of weakening the government because the market is a better regulator of the economy while ignoring the fact that when the government has played a less active or more disinterested role in the economy the results have been far from successful. In this case you advocate for a system that is known to lead to massive violations of the rights of individuals in an attempt to protect the very rights that those organizations have a long history of trampling. You then argue that the Federal government, which is far from perfect, should be weakened despite the fact that it has a long history of actually protecting those very rights you argue you are concerned about.
This is much like arguing that the best course to protect yourself from a man eating tiger is remove the cage containing that tiger because the tiger managed to reach its paws between the bars and swat at and claw you.
Second, unless you wish to submit to a world court (which I doubt) the system is (and was) designed to check its own powers from the very beginning. The whole point of the checks and balances of the federal system is designed to respond to your concern. Whether it does or not is entirely another matter. The point of a constitutional republic of our size is to have a large enough government (read not states) with the power to block the motives and motivations of factions seeking to advance their agendas at the expense of others. Madison talks about this in Fed-10, as well as other places. Simple fact is, smaller governmental structures are more prone to abuses of life and liberty. We see this in the local governments, city councils, school districts, etc. States historically allow this to happen as often as not, potentially more often than not given the number of times the federal government has had to step in to correct these abuses. Simply stating that there is no reciprocal power by the states doesn't in any way argue in favor of the states (which we know are guilty of these abuses) having more power.
This remains a ridiculous argument. There are no examples of a local government being inherently superior to a representative federal government. In fact, history argues strongly in favor of a federal system. It is more responsive to major problems, it is better able to reach moderate courses of action that better represent the wishes of the majority, and it is less susceptible to the negative influence of factions manipulating the entity's policies and programs. None of this is to say that a national level, federal government is immune from such things, just that it has a far greater ability to minimize and marginalize those efforts. Really your argument is that you *might* have a say in what the government does at a local level so you like it better, whether that government actually is better or not is irrelevant.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 7, 2010 7:00 PM
@heddle
Need I point out that Tennessee shares a river with nine other states? The watershed of which drains from 31 different states? I take your derision to mean that you could care less about whether states other than your own protect their water, even though this would surely affect your own water supply.
For example, as a resident of Michigan I care very much about how many gallons-per-flush is acceptable for toilets in Illinois, given that Chicago removes 2 billion gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan (Great Lakes watershed) but discharges its wastewater into the Chicago River (Mississippi River watershed), thereby artificially lowering the water level of Lakes Michigan and Huron. There are any number of examples across a broad spectrum of issues where a strong federal government is the only way to stop states from doing harm to each other.
Posted by: Chelydra | January 8, 2010 9:29 AM
I'll just jump in here to point out that Virginia and Kentucky did exactly this when the Adams administration pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. True, that was over two centuries ago, but that only forces us to acknowledge the increased complexity of national politics today. States do still oppose and halt federal incursions; they just do so before the incursions actually take place, back when they are initially raised as a thought. Sorry, heddle, we don't live in the 18th century any longer, and regardless of the, IMO, complete and continued relevance of constitutional boundaries, the means of politics is drastically different.
And while you're hoping for more control at the local and state levels (for reasons completely debunked in ways I hadn't considered before), there are issues such as wastewater discharge which can't be solved at the local or state level. Simply put, while you may prefer your local government be the one entrusted with determining flush amounts, it is not competent to do so.
I consider myself a federalist, recognizing that where problems can be solved, there they should be. This isn't one of those. Nor are many that national governments try to solve when they should be addressed by properly instituted and democratically legitimized continental or global authorities.
Posted by: Tony | January 9, 2010 10:39 PM