digamma.net - notes

Shorter New York Times: let’s use the Tenth Amendment to win this case, and then to go back to pretending it isn’t there.

Seriously, they don’t even pretend to care what the Constitution says. They know the outcomes they want, and they’ll twist the text whatever way necessary to achieve it. One wonders if they can think of a single government act that would be good but unconstitutional, or bad but nonetheless constitutionally permitted.

I’m not saying conservatives are any better, but they’ve generally spent enough time arguing about the Constitution that they can FAKE a justification of how partial-birth abortion constitutes interstate commerce, or whatever.

Matt Yglesias coins a term that Democrats need to remember in primary season:

This “immunization fallacy” needs to be combatted in all its manifestations. People thought after the 2000 election that it wouldn’t be possible to demonize Tom Daschle, the soft-spoken veteran moderate Senator from very red South Dakota, but it was. People thought during the 2004 primary that it wouldn’t be possible to demonize John Kerry, the war hero, as weak on national security (Kerry himself repeatedly asserted this), but it was. It’s not impossible to demonize anyone, especially when the accuracy of your charges is entirely unrelated to your willingness to make them or to the media’s willingness to cover them in a damaging manner. Reid will be subject to a demonization campaign. If Jeb Bush wins the Democratic nomination in 2008, he will be subject to a demonization campaign. The question is what are you going to do about it?

If I may look backward for a moment, there is a lesson here for any Democrats planning to take a time machine back to January of 2004. Kerry, with his purple hearts, may have looked like a more “immune” candidate. But who looked like a candidate who would take the smear machine head-on and smear back in a winning way?

I still think it was Howard Dean.

Look, I’ve lived in “blue states” all my life. I wanted John Kerry to win the 2004 Presidential election. And I resent that my country’s counterterror policy is being screwed up by voters in places who face no risk of terrorist attack. But I think blue-staters need to take a long look at themselves before making blanket denunciations of “red state” culture.

Even as he tries to take a moderate tone, Tom Tomorrow makes what I think is a mistake:

There’s more, and I don’t agree with all of it, and I’m sure it will annoy a lot of you, especially if you happen to be a liberal living in a rural setting. But, sorry–your existence does not negate the larger point they are making, the thing that a lot of people trying to grapple with right now: there are two sets of values in America. And to be blunt, ours are better. So how do we win this fight next time around? Figuring out who “we” are seems like a better place to start than wasting time wondering how to appeal to knuckle-draggers who worry that gay marriage will lead inevitably to matrimony between men and animals, if not kitchen appliances.

But what are “our” values, and what are “theirs"? Who are we, and who are they?

Here’s the sleight-of-hand. “We” get to be Manhattanites who read the Guardian online and can explain in great detail the history of US middle eastern policy and what we think is wrong with it. “They” have to be the folks waiting in line at Wal-Mart to pick up the latest installment of Left Behind. “Our” wonks get compared to “their” base. Who’s going to win that one?

But two can play at that game. Democrats have a base, too, and it doesn’t subscribe to the American Prospect. I lived a long time in Philadelphia, and rode a lot of buses. There are plenty of people in that city who can contend with your favorite Texans any day in child abuse, ignorance of science, hatred of homosexuals, and consumption of apocalyptic Christian pulp. And most of them voted the same way I did on November 2.

If you frame the debate as one of Ramesh Ponnuru’s values against the values of clowns on Democratic Underground, the Republicans win. If it’s Robert Reich against freepers, Democrats come out ahead. But neither comparison proves anything.

So if yelling about how the other guys’ base sucks is a way to win converts and get your base to the polls, then go ahead. But don’t delude yourself into thinking your side is that much better.

In the comments to a typically provocative Chris Bertram post on global warming, someone named Dan Hardie writes:

Further to dsquared’s point, as I understand it one big reason that fuel-inefficient cars are so popular in the US are that US fuel taxes are nowhere near European levels. And I see little prospect of that changing give the disproportionate Senate representation low-population-density, and thus high-car-use, rural states. Of course, a modest fuel tax increase- presented, with good reason, as a measure necessary to enhance national security- might well have been acceptable in the crisis atmostphere of September 2001. But we’ll never know now…

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a variation on this idea - you can see some of it at the end of this post from Mark Zipkin. The general idea is that my favorite unpopular policy could have passed if only the government had used 9/11 to justify it in the attacks’ immediate aftermath.
That is so evil.*
The government DID take advantage of the 9/11 aftermath to get its favorite legislation passed. In the Patriot Act, the FBI got everything on their Christmas list that they didn’t get after Oklahoma City. Big Labor got a piece of every airport security employee in the country. Every state in the union got pointless pork projects paid for out of Homeland Security money. Best of all, we got to see a bunch of cool explosions as we retaliated against a country which had nothing to do with the attacks, but which the administration had been meaning to get around to one of those days.

I suppose it would have been nice to see Bush on television that week saying, “My fellow Americans, our policies must now change in the wake of these attacks. We will no longer prop up fundamentalist terror-supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We’re not going to topple them, but from here on, they must defend themselves without our help. We will no longer pursue a quest for drug prohibition that drives massive profits into the hands of terrorists. Our farm subsidies create poverty in the third world, increasing the popularity of anti-American demagogues, and must be ended. And in all these policy initiatives, you’re either with us or against us.”

But those were my favorite policies on September 10th, too. And if I couldn’t get them passed then, getting them pushed through the next day because of fear would be wrong. Likewise, if you think 9/11 was a great opportunity to get single-payer healthcare in the United States, or something, you’re probably right. But that doesn’t make it a good idea. Because if you can do it, the other guys can too.

* I have just been disinvited from Mark’s party next weekend.

Is this a joke? Does John Ashcroft have Ashton Kutcher’s voice in his ear whispering ways to drive us all crazy, only to inform us that we have been Punk’d?

WASHINGTON - Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush’s decisions on America’s obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called “a profoundly disturbing trend” among some judges to interfere in the president’s constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

Jesucristo.

You know what I think is “a profoundly disturbing trend"? The fact that the executive branch of the United States government believes – and this is not hyperbole anymore, this is RIGHT IN FRONT OF US – that they are above the law.

Do these people even know why we HAVE laws? Why we have judges?

Four years ago, I would have said that Republicans had far better ideas about judicial philosophy than Democrats. I thought left-wing “activist judges” who thought policies they liked trumped constitutional limitations on government were a real problem. Then the American right went completely insane, and decided an “activist judge” was one who thought the constitution didn’t grant them absolute power.

Insane.

Good Lord.

Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A talk and Q/A on the life-and-death consequences of our nation’s moral premises

IRVINE, CA - The war on terror is proving to be a catastrophic failure. No army in the world is more powerful than ours, yet the death toll of American troops in Iraq continues to climb. Why? At home, terror alerts - now elevated, now lowered - remind us daily that the enemy persists in its quest to annihilate us, while our leaders issue apologies for military operations aimed at self-defense. Why? Our diplomats jet around the globe cravenly seeking to appease “world opinion” - and to echo the apologies. Why? From the start of this three-year-long war, never has victory - the total, ruthless eradication of the enemy - been the aim. Why not?

At every stage of this war, and on every front - from the fire-fights in the streets of Iraq, the mountain sieges of Afghanistan to the nuclear-capable enemies that Washington refuses to target - our leaders have slavishly conformed to the “just-war” theory. Widely taught at military academies, such as West Point, and embraced by the State Department, it is the altruistic moral code embedded in this theory that animates every one of Washington’s key military decisions. And it has emasculated our attempts at self-defense.

In this passionately reasoned lecture, Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute illustrates how “just-war” theory has been undercutting America’s success in the war, and why it is necessarily self-destructive. Dr. Brook argues for an alternative morality of war, one that justly demands the total, ruthless eradication of the enemy, and lasting victory. Drawing upon Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, he advocates a war based on the principles of rational self-interest.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

The link refers to a talk delivered in California in September, but the email that alerted me to this tripe says he’s delivering it next Wednesday, the 17th, at NYU’s Kimmel Center.

Some people think all campaign speech in the United States should be publicly financed and controlled. I think such control would be very bad policy. Why, you ask?

Belgium’s highest court has ruled that the Flemish far-right Vlaams Blok party is racist.

The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party.

That’s why.

Blue: Hey, we’ve had enough, we want to secede.
Red: You can’t do that. Ever heard of the Civil War?
Blue: Don’t you mean the War of Northern Aggression!
Red: Yeah, exactly! We have the RIGHT to secede!
Blue: If you insist.
Red: But you still have to pay us farm subsidies.
Blue: Oh that’s fine. We’ll keep paying you farm subsidies, and you can keep supporting our black welfare mothers.
Red: Black wel-WHAT?
Blue: Actually, we didn’t mean that.
Red: Good.
Blue: We meant to say black LESBIAN welfare mothers.
Red: Hell no! Pay your own way!
Blue: If you insist. Deal?
Red: Deal. You big government liberals are going to starve.
Blue: So long, suckers!
Red: D’oh!

I am not a huge fan of Al Franken’s political punditry. However, his election as United States Senator from Minnesota would be the greatest thing to happen to Congress since James Traficant.

A year ago today, if you’d asked me what would happen in the 2004 Presidential election, I’d have said something like this: “The Democrat should be able to win every state Gore won in 2000 and add New Hampshire. Then it’s a matter of winning Ohio or Florida - probably Ohio, because I don’t trust Jeb.”

That prediction would have been correct in 47 out of the 50 states. Not because I’m a precognitive political genius, but because that’s how predictable this election was. Only about eleven states were remotely in question, and most people agreed Ohio and Florida would decide it. So neither side did much better or much worse than anyone expected them to. Bush won, but it was never a sure thing.

John Kerry’s campaign wasn’t flawless, but in the end, I was proud to support him. I’m proud of his New Hampshire victory and my miniscule role in it. America is lucky to have such a dedicated public servant.

Democrats are pondering changes in strategy, and I have no good ideas to offer, other than that they embrace all the policies I favor. One fact bears keeping in mind, however: despite their victories, Republicans aren’t in a much better electoral position. 51-48 isn’t that comfortable a margin of victory. Both sides are looking for a way to break this stalemate.

There’s a faint chance, I suppose, that Bush’s second term will finally see some results on fiscal conservatism and free trade. I doubt it, but that’s my glimmer of hope for the next four years.

Remember when people were saying that if we didn’t vote for Bush, we’d be attacked? Remember the Onion article Cheney Vows to Attack U.S. if Kerry Elected?

Well, they weren’t kidding.

LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J. - A National Guard F-16 fighter jet on a nighttime training mission strafed an elementary school with 25 rounds of ammunition, authorities said Thursday. No one was injured.

Take that, blue state! I’m sure Halliburton will do a fine job rebuilding the school.

“We in New York are too close to the terrorism and the gay people. Only the red states, with the advantage of a safe distance, can take in the whole picture and clearly see what we should do about those issues. And so, on behalf of everyone living in the blue states, I’d like to thank the red states for saving us from ourselves.”

- Stephen Colbert, November 3, 2004

Various discussion sites I frequent have, in the wake of the geographically-divided election, discussed the possibility of secession, or as I think to think of it, a Velvet Divorce, whereby the blue states form their own country and the red states form theirs. The red states, of course, would lose money on the deal, but they’d be free of elites’ forcing abortion and sodomy on them, or something.

One problem is that when you try to draw the borders for these new countries, it gets difficult. Which country will Pennsylvania be in? Don’t tell my family in Philly that they’re part of Red America. If DC goes Blue, do its suburbs in Virginia?

I wouldn’t think this division would be worth discussing, except for one issue: foreign policy. We’re in a war, as Republicans love to point out. The people threatened by our enemies in this war are almost entirely blue-staters. These blue-staters, as they showed in their votes on Tuesday, believe this war should be executed in a certain way. And their opinion was overridden by red-state voters with very little stake in the war.

And there’s something very wrong with that.

Honestly, sometimes when I read Catallarchy, I think to myself that those guys are crazy with their talk of privatized national defense. Today I’m not so sure. What if there were a company called Upriver Defense that focused all its resources into hunting for Osama bin Laden (with a side business of inspecting US ports), and another one called Crawford Crusaders that prioritized overthrowing hostile governments, and we could choose which one to hire?

I have no idea how or if this all would work in practice, but I do think it’s less insane than it seemed a week ago. I am unhappy with how my country chooses its wartime strategy. We can do better.

If CNN doesn’t think there’s enough information to call Ohio for Bush, why does John Kerry?

Matthew Yglesias unveils the issues that really matter in 2004:

It looks like the ultimate outcome will come down to whether Ohioans are more driven by an irrational dislike of gays and lesbians, or by an irrational desire to blame George W. Bush for the long-term decline of American manufacturing.

Go manufacturing!

If this election ends up going on for weeks, I’m going to feel really stupid for having stayed up all night tonight to see the result. But I’m superstitious about going to bed with a critical situation on the line, ever since I slept through the Phillies’ collapse in Game 4 of the 1993 World Series.

But I need sleep.

So let me keep myself awake by quoting some stuff Michael Totten wrote on Instapundit today:

If George W. Bush wins the election, the world will still spin on its axis. Canada will not grant you asylum. If John Kerry wins the election, America will still be America. Australia will not grant you asylum.

People who vote for the other guy aren’t stupid, brainwashed, or evil. They are your friends and family. Someone you love will almost certainly cancel your vote.

If, by some chance, everyone you know votes for the loser it won’t mean the election was stolen. It will only show that you live in a bubble.

I’d add, in what may be the final hours of the 2004 campaign, that if you’ve promised to leave the country if this election doesn’t go your way, please keep your promise. Let me enjoy Bush’s hypercapitalist theocracy, Kerry’s surrender to al Qaeda and the European Union, or whatever your favorite Chicken Little fantasy is, in peace.

When trading opened on TradeSports this morning, the market showed John Kerry with a 46% shot at winning the election.

It’s 8:15 PM EST now, and he’s at 71%.