Exploring the (shallow) Recesses of the Conservative Mind

I just spent the weekend with scads of family members who are very religiously and politically conservative (not necessarily in that order of importance). I’m always amazed (sometimes even doubtful) that we actually share any DNA.

Before one even has a conversation with them, the script can pretty much be written by surveying the cars they drive. Suburbans, minivans, and Ford F150s rule the day—every one of them adorned with bumper stickers reading “W,” “Support the Troops,” “I’ll keep my Guns, Freedom, and Money. You Can Keep the ‘Change’,” and, of course, “Gig’em Aggies.” The one that really got me this time was a sticker bearing the words, “Annoy a Liberal; Read the Constitution.” My head started spinning like Linda Blair in The Exorcist; I had to stop and take deep, slow breaths, convinced that projectile vomiting was close behind.

To be sure, my family is made up of otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. Certainly they know HOW to read. But this was such a blatant, textbook case of Freudian Projection, I scarcely knew where to begin deconstructing the disconnect. I’m confident there are some conservatives who have actually read the Constitution. Some may even be able to quote a sentence or two. But these folks—the same ones who read the pornographically violent comic-book fiction of “Left Behind” as if it were a how-to manual, must think of the Constitution as historical fiction.

When I was growing up, preachers in my fundamentalist church were fond of decrying the “librul” christians for practicing what they called “cafeteria-style religion.” In other words, these semi-heathen, bound-for-hell, pseudo Christians, went through the bible picking and choosing the parts they like and passing over the rest, a la Sunday lunch at Luby’s. You’d think the fundamentalists might have seen a bit of selective literalism in their own practices. (These are, after all the folks who are militantly “Pro Life,” meaning, of course, pro UNBORN life. Anyone whose head has already popped out of the womb is deprived of such compassion—particularly Muslims and abortion doctors).

After witnessing eight years of the travesties of the Bush/Cheney Administration, endlessly cheered on by the radical “religious” right, it’s hard to imagine these folks as the defenders of the Constitution. In fact, I think the right is guilty of “cafeteria-style constitutional democracy.” I can just imagine that lunch line: “No that ‘right to a trial by a jury of peers’ bit, that’s a bit like brussel sprouts—leave that off my plate. That ‘illegal search and seizure’ thing, I’ll pass. Oh, give me a double helping of that ‘right to bear arms’ casserole; those guns are just so yummy! No, no, don’t want any of that ‘due process’ crap.”

Then, it really is hard to take seriously a group whose spokespeople are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly (who are so obviously and deeply unhinged that they must be one missed dose of Prozac—or would that be OxyContin?—away from being fitted for one of those lovely backward white jackets and locked away). And they think “24” and Fox News are for real while evolution is “only a theory.”

OK, let’s review the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America—the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We’ll give them credit for the “right to bear arms” in spite of the fact that they take it totally out of the context of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The rest… not so much (but, hey, one out of ten ain’t bad).

So, conservatives, if you want to have a discussion about the Constitution, I say, “bring it on!” (oh, wait, maybe that phrase elicits some extra-constitutional references, like maybe Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have the power to… declare war….”) I think my new bumper sticker will say, “Note to Conservatives: You go ahead and read it; we’re pretty busy protecting and defending it!”

A New Beginning--Obama's Speech at Cairo University

This is rather remarkable. Five months into his presidency, Obama has challenged Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, all the Muslim world, and the United States in ways that surpass all the efforts of the last four presidents combined.

I have not been silent in my criticisms of Obama’s embrace—and in many cases, expansion—of the abuses of power of the Bush administration. I caucused for Obama in my district and voted for him. It is our duty to support our elected leaders when they lead honorably. And to hope that a president fails (and to continually work to effect that failure) is nothing short of treason. However, I believe that We The People must constantly challenge our president and all our elected leaders and demand that they uphold our Constitution and represent us. That goes for a president of any party, no matter how eloquent and polished his or her demeanor or oratory. (And it is certainly refreshing to once again have a president—the “leader of the free world”—who can communicate with skills surpassing that of a kindergartener.)

This speech has its holes and incongruities. But it is extraordinarily bold and deserves much praise.

Talking out of Both Sides of Their Mouths

(Or is that “Buttering Both Sides of Their Bread”?. . . well, they have been doing a lot of teabagging lately!)

UPDATED 5-19-2009

The Republicans have stooped to new lows in the latest incarnation of the torture “debate.” Their current inconsistencies are so muddled, moronic, and absurd that it’s hard to believe they’re getting any play time in the media (OK, not too hard to believe considering the intellectual dishonesty of the MSM).

They want to insist that the United States has never tortured. Yet, not only did the torture work, if we don’t continue to torture the ubiquitous Scary Terrorists will annihilate us.

The Bush Administration broke no laws, but if they did, it was only to protect us, and they should absolutely not be investigated (and certainly not prosecuted). Yet, we definitely MUST investigate what Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and when she knew it.

Only the radical “Left” advocates investigations (though almost 75% of Americans are in favor—an awfully skewed left), and only for highly partisan reasons. Yet most of those calling for investigations believe in equal application of the law and want everyone who might have played a role in conspiring to create a system of torture—Republicans and Democrats alike—to be subject to investigation (many of us radical lefties have been calling for investigations of Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, et. al. for over two years).

The Republicans are the real Patriots, supporters of the troops, and true Americans. But they’re also the ones who are advocating total disregard for the defining characteristics of American Democracy: the Constitution and the Rule of Law. (Some, like the f*cking brilliant governor of my home state, are even suggesting secession, stupid asswipe!).

Those of us who think sending our troops into harm’s way based on brazen lies, violating their contracts with stop-loss, and bringing them home to inadequate health care and benefits is anything BUT supporting our troops (but as long as you put a bumper sticker on your car, it doesn’t really matter); those of us who think suspending habeas corpus, torturing and murdering prisoners (many of whom we know are completely innocent) expressly for the purpose of eliciting false confessions to justify our illegal wars of aggression, feloniously spying on our own citizens, ignoring Congressional subpoenas and court orders, and otherwise eviscerating the Constitution (that “god dammed piece of paper”) are things we should not be doing are labeled as “UnAmuhrkan.”

The cognitive dissonance of the right is astounding! Maybe any health care reform needs to include automatic psychotherapy for all registered Republicans?

Related to this post, it seemed appropriate to dredge up this lyric, posted quite some time ago.

UPDATE
This article by Matthew Yglesias on The Daily Beast, GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire, adds more perspective on this topic.

Is Nancy Pelosi on Drugs?

From Ms. Pelosi's appearance on The View:

When I became Speaker, and this, by the way a very important position: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House. I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much-divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive to the country.

Etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

I don't ask this question to accuse or insinuate, but to give the Speaker an out. If she's on drugs, everyone will forgive her after a brief stay at the Betty Ford Clinic. If, however, she doesn't have that excuse, she's simply arrogant and utterly stupid. You really have to watch this to believe it.

"President, Vice President, Speaker of the House"--sounds sort of like Bush's gaffe (I know, every time he opens his mouth it's a gaffe) at the G8 summit, "Russia's a big country and you're a big country." I think Speaker Pelosi has been in a few too many secret meetings with Dubya; she's starting to sound just like him.

This would be hysterically funny comedy if it weren't so profoundly serious. How dare she, in her "very important position" (in the fulfillment of which she can't even put a coherent sentence together), deign to declare "I thought that impeachment would be divisive to the country"? "I thought"????!!! Her "very important" opinion takes precedence over the Constitution of the United States?

What very little respect she allowed me to retain for her is rapidly ebbing from my soul (like the life-blood that's oozing from our democracy).

Reclaiming Liberalism

For the past several decades, the far right in American politics has preempted the dialogue and redefined the terms of the debate. They have done this with enormous success, largely because we on the left have allowed them to. Now days, the term “Liberal” is used as a four-letter-word, a pejorative invoking numerous connotations (“tax and spend,” “welfare state,” “morally degenerate,” “godless,” “weak-on-security,” “elitist,” “communist,” etc.). A few of these depictions had just enough basis in reality to become believable when they were repeated loudly enough and often enough.

It’s past time for us to take control of the debate! We need to “own” the term “Liberal” and rob it of its power over us, much as the gay rights movement took the term “queer” and defanged it. It’s time to put the far right on the defensive; after all, it was under their watch that we’ve seen crumbing infrastructure, skyrocketing health care costs, widening disparity between the wealthy and the poor, the collapse of Enron, the mortgage/housing crisis, preemption of the media as an arm of the government, the largest government bureaucracy in the history of the nation, astronomical national debt, amoral and illegal preemptive war, subversion of the Constitution, recession, and on and on.

We should be vocal about the need for a social climate in which we are brought together as Americans acting like rational, mature adults rather than pulled apart by petty name calling and finger pointing like sniggering cliques in junior high. We should talk about how far the billions of dollars being squandered by no-bid contracts to KBR and Halliburton without any accountability could go toward fixing our aging highways and collapsing bridges. We should talk about how the government should be leading the way in promoting public transportation initiatives and sources of renewable energy rather than meeting with the CEOs of the oil and gas industry behind closed doors deciding how to best keep America dependent upon fossil fuels. We should be discussing ways to make education affordable and effective and make jobs pay a living wage once we graduate. We should push for adequate support systems for members of our military rather than spouting empty rhetoric about “supporting our troops” while slashing their benefits and increasing their tours of duty. (A bumper sticker never has and never will provide medical care for a soldier with a head injury from an IED or provide for the surviving spouse and children of a soldier killed in battle. And it certainly won't bring them back when their lives are taken). We should be advocating for accessible health care and bargaining with the pharmaceutical companies for affordable prescriptions. We should allow the agencies entrusted with our public safety—food inspectors, workplace safety inspectors, scientists researching the effects of the poisons in our air and water and of climate change—to do their jobs rather than redacting, refusing to release, refuting, or simply not opening the studies they provide.

And we should be ready and willing to say, “If holding these positions makes me a Liberal, then damn it, I’m a Liberal!”

We’re here. We’re LIBERAL. Get used to it!

The Precipice of Congressional Complicity

Updated below (7/21/2008)
Update II (7/25/2008)

For me, one of the truly disheartening things about witnessing the FISA debacle in both the House and Senate was seeing the sheer enormity of apparent complicity among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It was especially disheartening to see the Democrats—the “opposition party”—so eagerly and nearly universally enabling the criminality of the Bush administration. The only possible explanation for that I can conceive is that Congress is fundamentally complicit in those crimes and is brazenly and transparently attempting to cover their own asses.

Since we know Speaker Pelosi was briefed on, and probably signed off on, many of the twisted justifications for lawlessness, isn’t there a way to force her to recuse herself from the impeachment debate or face impeachment herself?

We find ourselves—our Constitutional Democracy—at the edge of a precipice; plunging over it seems ever more inevitable.

This post by David Swanson at AfterDowningStreet.org presents a stronger case for Congressional Complicity.

This interview by Jane Hamsher and Bruce Fein spells it out again.